Divine Intervention Home 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 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.

People’s care plans provided detailed information about people’s communication, sensory needs, likes and dislikes. The care plans and risk assessments were reviewed annually, and sooner if required, in line with the provider’s policy.

The provider worked with people to ensure care was person-centred and reflected their preferences and daily routines. People were comfortable with the staff assisting them and appeared content.

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.

The service worked with other providers to ensure care and treatment was delivered in a way that met people’s needs. This included ensuring people were supported by a consistent group of staff who knew them well.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s protected characteristics and were aware of their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. Support was delivered in a way that promoted equality, diversity and inclusion, ensuring people were treated fairly and with respect.

Where gaps in support were identified, such as the need for increased funding or resources, staff and managers acted proactively. They worked in partnership with commissioners and other professionals to address these needs and ensure continuity of care.

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

Staff provided people and relatives with clear, accessible information about care, daily activities and changes in health needs. Relatives told us they were kept up to date through phone calls, and review meetings.

All information made available to people’s relatives was available in alternative languages, as and when required. Information was also available in large print.

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.

People were given regular opportunities to share their views and experiences about the support they received. This included review meetings involving both staff and the people they supported, where everyone could express their opinions, raise concerns, and offer suggestions.

People were actively encouraged to take part in shaping and improving their support.

Both people and their relatives said they felt listened to by managers and staff, and that their views were valued and respected. They also told us they would feel confident raising any concerns or issues, knowing these would be addressed promptly.

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

People had access to healthcare, community activities and specialist support based on their needs. Staff supported people to access shops, social outings and local public transport as part of their weekly routines. People were supported to overcome barriers to ensure equal access to health and well-being support.

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.

People were supported to access a wide range of activities based on their choices. The provider had systems to ensure people's feedback was received. Staff provided people with person-centred care and people were given choices and encouraged to follow their interests where appropriate. People were encouraged to maintain contact with loved ones so their independence was promoted, and the risk of social isolation was minimised.

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.

At the time of our assessment, no one needed end of life care; however, the provider did have a suitable policy in place for such circumstances.