Alcester Home Care Agency Ltd Also known as Alcester Primary Care Centre

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.

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 demonstrated staff had considered people’s individual preferences and used this information to complete a personalised care plan for staff to follow.

There was information in people’s care plan records about what was important to them and their own personal tastes and preferences. People’s care records reflected their individual likes and preferences, as well as previous and current physical and mental health. Some elements of people’s care plans would benefit from further reviews to ensure they remained updated. Staff felt the care plans and information they had helped them provide the right care.

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.

Relatives confirmed they were involved and played an important role in caring for their family member and being the link where necessary to the agency. People and relatives said staff were kind and caring and kept them informed of any changes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, some communication with people needed further improvement.

People and relatives were satisfied with the information they had around care plans and relatives were happy they were kept updated of any changes. However, what was clear from people and relatives was they did not feel they were given any information about staff changes. For some people, this had a detrimental effect. One relative said, “We lost about 8 people with no notice. He (Relative) has lost that rapport and he doesn't like change. It just feels more chaotic now and over the last couple of weeks particularly it's been absolutely desperate.” Another person said, “The only thing is that they used to come more in the morning for the daily visit but now they almost always come in the afternoon. This wasn't discussed with me, but I don't feel there's much I can do about it. It does irritate me.” Another person shared that whilst they were informed about the staff changes in writing, it did not offer an opportunity for discussion. The person said, “Around September time there was just a paragraph that they wrote on my call rota which said something along the lines of ‘Dear client, please find attached your care schedule. We've done our best to accommodate your times’ but then they apologised and said that the changes were due to ‘staffing difficulties’. Some of the ones who left had come to me 3 to 4 times a week, so I'd built up a rapport, but the management don't seem to have appreciated that.”

Following our feedback to the provider after our visit, the provider accepted communication could be improved. They said, “When there are significant changes to a client's regular carers, we will make direct contact, introduce the new carer where possible, and invite feedback. We understand that continuity of care is fundamental to how people feel.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives were anxious and upset that changes to their care staff team, had not been shared with them, or, that they understood why this had happened. People and relatives told us around 6 to 8 care staff had left, which the provider confirmed. Most people got on well with those staff so for them, they lost someone who knew them well. In some cases, people said replacement staff were still taking time to get to know them. It was clear from people and relatives feedback to us, they did not always feel involved, especially when changes could impact on them.

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

People’s needs were assessed before they received care from the agency. Senior staff assessed people’s needs and care plans reflected how people needed their care calls completed. People told us they got a rota telling them in advance, who was supporting them. One person said, “On a Friday I get a roster with the time and the person named on it and it's almost universally adhered to but just occasionally there are changes if somebody is off sick for example. We did agree to the times of the calls, and they do stay for the full time.”

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 said their flexibility and how the service was managed, ensured people could access support which met their changing needs. Some of the flexibility was down to changing people’s care calls around their personal lives and recognising when people had other things planned or appointments to attend.

Staff recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity to improve outcomes for people. People told us they were asked about gender of care staff and who they preferred to provide their care. For example, some people preferred female only staff. People confirmed their preferences were followed. In 1 example, a person said they did not like a specific staff member and that staff member had not supported them since. People’s comments and the provider’s records showed care was personalised and flexible, with people’s call schedules designed for continuity and at the times people wanted.

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 inspection, no one was receiving end of life care.

People received care in their own home, and this was their choice to remain at home for as long as possible. Care plans we saw did not specifically contain end of life care and how this was to be delivered. However, some people had documented their ‘ReSPECT’ which was a process that creates personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care and treatment in a future emergency when they are unable to make or express choices. During our visit, the provider said 1 person was at end of life and appropriate health professionals were involved to manage and support this person.