Ethical Homecare Solutions

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 75 (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 made 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. They clearly outlined how people wished to be supported. The registered manager had obtained detailed life history information for each person, which supported the delivery of personalised care that was sensitive to people’s backgrounds.

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. They were proactive and supported people to gain additional support when required to ensure care was coordinated and responsive to people’s needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider gave examples of how this had been adapted for people. For example, information had been provided in ways that meet people’s communication needs, in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Where family members were involved in supporting a person, steps had been taken to ensure they could fully access and understand relevant information. For example, where English was not a first language, interpreters were used over a sustained period to support understanding of care plans, needs and day‑to‑day support arrangements. This approach helped to reduce the risk of misunderstanding, supported informed involvement, and ensured families were able to contribute effectively to the person’s care. As communication needs changed over time, support was reviewed and adapted to remain responsive and accessible.

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 of this. Regular assessments of care were conducted with people and their relatives asked for feedback. A person told us, “I feel listened to.” A relative told us, “Yes care is tailored to [name] needs." Another relative told us, “Yes fully personalised and involved in all aspects of care."

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People and their relatives told us they were contacted if staff were going to be late. People told us they had their preferred staff as much as possible. One person told us, “Same carers and we are informed if the rota changes."

Staff and leaders demonstrated a proactive approach to understanding and responding to factors that may place people at risk of unequal experiences or outcomes. They actively listened to information about people’s individual needs and adjusted care, support and treatment accordingly. Relatives spoke positively about the impact of care provided, describing improved outcomes for their family members, including an enhanced quality of life.

The registered manager provided examples of how this approach was embedded within the service. Support was delivered in a way that promoted equity and ensured people were able to access the same healthcare opportunities as others. In one instance, a person’s mobility needs had the potential to create a barrier to accessing a hospital investigation. Reasonable adjustments were made to prevent this, with additional support arranged to ensure safe moving and handling arrangements were in place. This enabled the hospital assessment to proceed as planned. As a result, the person’s health concerns were appropriately addressed, and their mobility needs did not negatively affect their access to care or the outcome achieved.

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.

The service demonstrated a clear and compassionate approach to end‑of‑life planning. Documentation was in place that clearly described people’s wishes and preferences for the end of their life, ensuring these were fully understood, recorded and respected. Where people were approaching the end of life, care was actively planned and supported, with anticipatory medication in place to manage symptoms and promote comfort. Nursing professionals were fully involved in planning, implementing and reviewing care to ensure people received timely and appropriate clinical support.

The registered manager explained that care and support did not simply end when a care package ended, particularly at end of life. They told us, “Care does not simply end at the point a package ends. Staff often build strong and meaningful relationships with people and their families, particularly at end of life.” The registered manager also described how families had, on many occasions, invited staff to attend funerals, which reflected the trust, continuity and strong relationships developed through compassionate, person‑centred end‑of‑life care.