Whispers Care Solutions 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives had mixed views on whether they felt like they were at the heart of how their care, support and treatment was delivered. Some felt their care did not always meet their needs and preferences, mostly when supported by staff who they were less familiar with. For example, 1 person told us about having to direct and prompt staff during a care visit when they were not being supported the way they preferred to be supported. Another person told us they had not always received the breakfast choice they wanted and requested. We heard how staff supporting people with sensory impairments did not always introduce who they were on arrival which meant some people were not always sure who it was supporting them. Some people and relatives felt at times care calls could be rushed and this impacted on their experience of care. Some of the feedback from staff reflected similar concerns in relation to travelling time; not always being provided with enough time to travel between care visits.

Other people and relatives were positive about the personalised support they received and had no concerns about the duration of their care visits and felt staff had enough time to support them. People told us their choices in relation to the gender of staff providing their support was respected by the provider.

The provider told us they had taken action to address staff’s concerns about not having sufficient time to travel between care visits. From the mixed feedback we received, more time was needed for the impact of this action taken to be observed and experienced by people and staff. Contingencies were in place in the event call times were overrunning or unexpected events occurred to minimise the impact on people. The provider worked to their ‘acceptable window’ or period of time to deliver care visits before they were deemed late. Some people and relatives appeared aware of this time period but not all. During the assessment the provider implemented an additional audit to monitor and review people’s care visit times and duration to enable them to identify and address any concerns or shortfalls. Some information in people’s care plans could be more comprehensive. For example, whilst staff could describe how they supported people’s preferred communication needs, people’s care plans did not always detail how their communication needs were to be met or enable someone to know how to advocate for them. The provider was responsive to feedback about the lack of detail in people’s care planning records and started to address this during our assessment.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider had established a clear complaints policy and offered multiple channels for people and their relatives to share feedback. Many individuals shared positive experiences, comments included, “Every so often someone came round and updated us”, “Once a year we were asked about care and whether we were happy”, and “I got a call saying they wanted to check in and see how things were going.”

To improve accessibility, the provider enabled people to share feedback electronically. However, some people struggled with accessing and navigating the system and were able to provide feedback through regular reviews, surveys, and spot checks. Some people told us they would appreciate opportunities to provide anonymous feedback. The provider actively collected and responded to feedback. Most people reported feeling comfortable expressing concerns and sharing their views.

The provider’s feedback mechanisms remained available 24/7, with a structured approach to escalating concerns to the appropriate person. Communication channels included telephone calls, in-person visits, and emails, ensuring a consistent connection with people and families. There was an opportunity to strengthen how feedback was understood, fully addressed, and communicated; enhancing the recording and tracking of these processes would improve the provider’s transparency and accountability. This would ensure feedback was effectively captured and acted upon. By reinforcing these systems, the provider would be able to further build trust and engagement with people and their families.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.