Mulholland 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.

Staff understood people’s routines, preferences and the things that mattered to them. Care plans included detailed communication needs and specific guidance on how each person liked their care delivered. For example, a person preferred later morning calls and staff adapted visits accordingly.

People and relatives consistently told us staff involved them in care planning and reviewed needs with them. One relative said, “Staff always explain to [name] what they are going to do and involve [name] when providing care.”

A staff member told us, “I know the care is person-centred when I focus on each individual's preferences, values and needs. I regularly check in with them to ensure their voice guides the decision.”

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 provider worked in close partnership with healthcare professionals to support people whose needs were complex or changing. Alongside the community nursing team, the provider collaborated with local hospice’s, helping ensure people receiving palliative care were supported to remain at home when this was their preference.

Staff and families both told us this approach helped ensure people’s wishes were respected and they received coordinated, person‑centred care at times that were emotional and challenging for families.

We saw one example where the registered manager had raised concerns about the lack of ongoing support from external health professionals for a person whose mental health had deteriorated, which in turn was affecting aspects of their physical health. The registered manager continued to advocate for this individual to ensure they received the appropriate level of care.

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

People’s communication needs had been assessed, and their care plans gave staff detailed information on how to share information with people to enable effective decision making.

The service provided people with clear, accessible information about the care and support available to them. A member of staff told us, “We have a policy about the Accessible Information Standard which can accommodate clients with communication issues.” Information was shared in a timely way to help people understand what to expect from the service, including details about care visits, roles of staff and how care would be delivered in their own homes.

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.

The provider and staff were committed to continually improving the service, and there were multiple systems to enable people to share feedback, suggestions and concerns. People were actively encouraged to contribute their views through regular reviews, surveys and other formal and informal opportunities. We saw several examples where the service had liaised with people and their families to gather feedback and used this information to enhance the care and support provided. For example, 1 relative explained their father did not want carers because he preferred their support. The provider worked with both of them to build trust, gradually introduced carers, and updated the care plan to reflect the transition and the person’s preferences.

This feedback was shared with people and staff. As a result, the service became more responsive to individual preferences and changing needs. People experienced better outcomes because their views directly shaped the way care was delivered, helping ensure the service remained personalised, effective, and focused on what mattered most to them.

The service had a clear complaints policy outlining how people could complain. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident doing so. They said staff and the registered manager were approachable and responsive. One relative told us, “The staff are amazing, and the management team are really hands-on. They keep us updated.” Another person shared that when they had raised a minor issue, it was resolved quickly and effectively.

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

There was sufficient equipment in people’s homes to enable them to mobilise safely. Care plans considered people’s needs, and what reasonable adjustments could be made to ensure people could access their care and support effectively. Relatives told us, “[Name of registered manager] is very good and will advise us if they think [name] needs to see a GP. They have also made sure [name] has all the equipment they need.”

Staff ensured people had access to health and social care professionals when they were needed. A member of staff said, “During emergency situations, I would phone 999. For non-emergency situations which I have done before, I called NHS 111 for advice if I am concerned about my client’s health. I also inform [name of registered manager] and discuss any concerns. I also refer to the client’s care plan for any emergency advice.”

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 treated with respect and their rights respected and upheld. A relative told us, “The carers were very respectful and always sought my [relatives’] consent.” Staff had received training in equality and diversity and understood the importance of treating people as individuals.

People’s care plans focused on what mattered to each person and included goals and aspirations. During care plan review processes progress towards these goals was reviewed and plans developed detailing any additional support needed to achieve these goals.

The provider monitored outcomes through daily records, reviews and spot checks. Care plans contained clear information to promote safe and effective outcomes for people, including nutrition, hydration and communication. Incident records demonstrated staff acted appropriately and in a timely manner when people required urgent help.

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.

Staff had received training in end-of-life care and the service was able to support people to remain living at home where this was their preference. The service worked collaboratively with the local hospice and health professionals to provide holistic and pain free support at the end of their lives.

Where people had expressed wishes in relation to resuscitation, these wishes had been recorded and were stored appropriately so as to be available to emergency personnel if required.