Elmes Homecare

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 remains Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care records had not been consistently reviewed or updated. We identified concerns and risks to people's health and wellbeing. For example, one person’s care plan, documented they needed support from staff in using medical devices to manage their health conditions. The registered manager told us this was no longer the case and staff no longer supported the person with using these medical devices. However, the person’s care plan had not been updated to reflect this change. This placed the person at potential risk of unsafe care. Another person who was at high risk of falls, did not have their care records updated, including risk assessments, which were not reviewed following two falls.

Care file audits carried out did not identify the issues we found at this inspection in relation to risks to people’s care and support needs.

People and their relatives told us they had access to their care plan via the provider’s homecare app and they were also involved in regular reviews of their care plans. On relative said. “[My family member] has a care plan and it is due to be reviewed soon.” Another relative said, “Yes, [Staff member] came last week and ran through the care plan.”

There was a joined-up approach to care by the staff working at the service. Staff completed daily care notes with details of the care given. This was important if staff were attending calls where they needed to be aware of any concerns from the previous visit. Relatives told us that overall, there was a continuity in the care provided, as they usually had a regular staff team.

People told us they knew who the registered manager was, had the office contact details and were provided with information about their care and support. People told us staff communicated with them well. Records showed the registered manager engaged with relevant health care professionals to help provide responsive care and continuity with people’s care when using other healthcare services. The registered manager told us that no-one required information that needed to be tailored to people’s individual needs, such as large font or a pictorial format. However, if they did, this documentation would be provided to them in the format suitable for them.

The provider did not have a robust system in place to handle complaints effectively. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints. However, the provider did not handle complaints in line with their internal complaints policy. There was no complaints log in place, the provider showed us emails that dealt with complaints, but they failed to follow their policy in formally acknowledging the complaint had been received, inviting the complainant to meet to discuss the concern, recording and explaining who would be investigating and explaining the timescale of 28 days in which the complaint would be concluded.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint if needed. One relative said, “If I had a complaint, I would speak with the manager, the office is very responsive, I can ring them about anything”.

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood people had a right to receive equal access to health and care support when needed, which included GPs and district nurses if needed.

People and relatives told us they could easily speak to staff or managers. Management operated an open-door policy where people, staff, relatives could contact them at any time if they had any concerns.

The provider told us, they treated everyone with respect and kindness regardless of their race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Staff told us they received details about their care calls on time. Staff spoke positively about working for the service and told us that they felt supported by their colleagues and management. One staff member said, “Managers are supportive, they have an open-door policy.” A relative said, “It’s a very well-run service, very caring and responsive.”

The provider and staff told us that they presently did not have to support anyone with cultural needs. However, if they did then they would support people to have their diverse and cultural needs met.

Staff had received equality and diversity training and were able to describe how they respected people equally.

People did not have end of life care plans in place if appropriate to record people’s choices and preferences. The registered manager told us that they had not undertaken these discussions. People and relatives spoken with confirmed they had not had end of life discussions.

However, the registered manager told us, if and when required they would work with people, family members and other healthcare professionals to ensure people's end of life wishes were met.