Angel Home Care Service Private 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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and were able to describe how they supported people in ways that promoted comfort, independence and well-being. Staff also knew when it was appropriate to involve other professionals to ensure people received the right support at the right time. However, people’s care plans were not always detailed and person-centred. Important information about people’s preferences, routines, aspirations, and what mattered most to them was not consistently recorded. As a result, care plans did not always reflect the personalised knowledge staff held about the people they supported. There was some evidence that care plans were updated with involvement from people and their relatives. However records did not consistently show discussions had taken place when needs changed.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People received care and support that took into account their individual needs and abilities, and staff delivered care in line with people’s wishes. However, this was not always consistently recorded and gaps in planning and record keeping meant care was not always fully personalised or reliably tailored to each person.

Staff were provided with training designed to give them the skills and knowledge needed to support people safely and effectively. Despite this, not all staff had completed their mandatory training. This limited assurance that all staff had the necessary, up‑to‑date knowledge to meet people’s needs safely.

The provider engaged with external partners and stakeholders, and we saw examples of professional input being sought to support people’s wellbeing. However, this was not always embedded within care plans or day‑to‑day practice, meaning there was a risk of external guidance not consistently translating into improved, coordinated outcomes for people.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There were policies and procedures in place to support people with different communication needs. However, there was very little evidence to show how the provider ensured information was presented to people in ways that met their individual communication requirements. Care records did not consistently demonstrate how communication how communication needs were assessed, reviewed, or incorporated into daily practice.

Despite this, staff had good understanding of people’s communication needs and knew how to meet these effectively.

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.

There were policies and procedure in place to support gathering feedback from people using the service.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt they would be listened to.

We saw the provider had clear processes for receiving, investigating and responding to complaints. Records showed the service acted on feedback promptly and communicated outcomes to individuals. One person told us, “I feel very confident to speak up if something wasn’t right. I raised some concerns about my rota in the past, and this was sorted out quickly.”

However, there was no evidence of what learning had been applied and used to improve the overall delivery of care to people.

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

People received appropriate support and care from relevant professionals when required. The provider worked with a range of stakeholders and external partners to ensure people’s health outcomes were met. This collaborative approach supported coordinated care and enabled people to access specialist input when required. One relative told us, “My loved is currently awaiting treatment for their eyes, and staff help with eye drops and creams in the meantime.”

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 told us the provider listened to their feedback and carried out periodic checks on the quality of care they received. One person said, “I have been contacted by staff from the office for feedback. I told them I have always been happy with the service. A relative told us, “There is a lady who rings from the office from time to time to see if everything is ok.”

However, care records did not always consistently include the information gathered during these feedback conversations. There was also no evidence that the provider used this feedback to support learning or to drive improvements within the organisation. As a result, opportunities to identify patterns, address recuring issues, and enhance the overall quality of care were missed.

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.

People’s care plans did not always include information about their personal goals or future wishes, including their wishes at the end of their lives. This meant care planning did not always fully reflect what was important to each individual or support staff to understand people’s longer-term aspirations. The absence of clear end-of-life preferences also reduced the provider’s ability to ensure that people’s wishes would be respected and planned for in a timely and sensitive manner, should their needs change.