Caring Care Limited

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

People were not always 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. At the time of inspection, 1 person was receiving end‑of‑life care. Although a care plan was in place, it did not fully reflect the person’s individual preferences. It lacked the level of detail required to guide staff on what high‑quality care should look like, or clear instructions on when staff should seek additional support. Despite this, staff were knowledgeable about the person’s needs, recognised early signs and symptoms that may indicate deterioration, and understood when to escalate concerns for medical assistance. The registered manager took prompt action during the inspection to update and strengthen the care plan, ensuring it included comprehensive, person‑centred information to support consistent and responsive end-of-life care planning.

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.

Staff confirmed they had consistent information through the provider’s care planning system, enabling smooth handovers and coordinated support. External professionals also reported good communication and effective joint working for all care packages. Partners reported Caring Care worked effectively as part of the wider integrated care system, demonstrating strong performance in reablement through their responsiveness and ability to take high volumes of packages to support timely hospital discharge. Partners also shared the service enhanced system resilience by proactively sharing workforce information during local provider challenges to help maintain continuity of care.

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

The principles of Accessible Information Standards were being met, and the provider’s policy was appropriate. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their family carers, get information in a way they can understand. Communication plans included information on how to communicate effectively with people and people’s preferred communication style. Staff told us they informed people before carrying out any personal care and if they did not understand, they used signs, gestures, hand movements or translating apps.

People’s communication needs were assessed, and the registered manager explained people often requested care plans in easy‑read formats or in their preferred language. The service had produced care plans in these formats and languages as needed.

The registered manager also told us they had staff who could speak different languages, enabling them to match staff to people who required support in their first language. Relatives confirmed this had been offered in practice, and staff who spoke the person’s preferred language had been provided to support effective communication.

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.One person told us, “They come every day and they keep me up to date.”

Relatives felt the provider had effective systems to ensure they were kept informed about people’s care. One relative told us, “Whenever I am here, they will update me. I have a good relationship with them.” Partners told us when issues arose the registered manager was, “Responsive, communicative, and effective.” Partners also informed us, “Satisfaction surveys showed people were happy with the services they receive, and the low number of concerns and complaints supports this.”

The provider had a complaints policy which documented how people’s complaints and concerns would be investigated and responded to. The provider’s complaints log showed where concerns were raised by people, this was addressed by the provider and appropriate actions were taken.

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

The provider offered people services according to their accessibility needs. People’s preferences were documented in care plans including the language they spoke, and staff met their cultural or religious beliefs. A relative told us, “Yes, they are good at covering her after a shower.” Families also reported that care staff consistently maintained planned visit times and adjusted only when unavoidable, such as during severe weather or traffic, with clear communication provided. Partners told us the provider offered a wide range of services and demonstrated awareness of accessibility needs such as providing support in multiple languages.

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. Relatives were positive about the care and support provided. Staff told us they had enough information to ensure people received safe care.

Staff had completed training around Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR), which helped them to recognise, promote and protect people's protected characteristics. Staff showed a good awareness of what discrimination meant and how to challenge any concerns. Processes were in place to help ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights. Care plans contained information about how people’s social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met. Staff focused on ensuring people were treated respectfully and supported people to maintain their independence.

People were not always 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. At the time of inspection, 1 person was receiving end‑of‑life care. Although a care plan was in place, it did not fully reflect the person’s individual preferences. It lacked the level of detail required to guide staff on what high‑quality care should look like, or clear instructions on when staff should seek additional support. Despite this, staff were knowledgeable about the person’s needs, recognised early signs and symptoms that may indicate deterioration, and understood when to escalate concerns for medical assistance. The registered manager took prompt action during the inspection to update and strengthen the care plan, ensuring it included comprehensive, person‑centred information to support consistent and responsive end-of-life care planning.