Northwest Domiciliary Agency

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had holistic support plans and all people supported said they were involved in planning their care. Lead staff completed monthly summaries alongside people which highlighted what responses were required. The registered manager monitored these and took appropriate action for example requesting a medicines review.

The provider established ‘maps of happiness’. These were completed by people with staff support and were a visual illustration of what made people happy and how best to support them. Examples included supporting people to become independent with managing their finances and cooking favourite meals.

There were monthly empowerment meetings where people chose how to spend their 1-1 support time with staff. The manager monitored this to make sure people were supported according to their preferences.

During the assessment we observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way, such as positively encouraging people to make choices about how to decorate their home.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Everyone we spoke with said that staff had a good understanding of their needs and preferences. There was a consistent and stable staff team, some of which were long-standing members which enabled continuity and familiarity with people. Where people accessed external organisations such as the local luncheon club, staff shared information appropriately.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider took account of people’s communication needs, and this was documented in care plans. This meant the provider could tailor both written and verbal information accordingly and were able to adapt into different formats. Staff completed GDPR training and all paper files were stored securely.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a complaints policy and processes. The provider asked people, relatives and staff to complete surveys to collect feedback. Any concerns people raised were dealt with effectively and in a timely manner.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The house was adapted to meet people’s mobility needs and where people required walking aids this was arranged. Relatives usually telephoned ahead when they visited and were welcome to visit when they liked. There were on-call procedures for out of hours support when required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had policies regarding equality and discrimination, and leaders were committed to implementing these. Staff were aware of both physical and social barriers that people may face and tried to alleviate these when required. People felt they were treated equally.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s choices and preferences about planning for the future were considered in care plans. Staff could access end of life training and had links with the local hospice.