Lima Homecare LTD

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.

The provider ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with people, and where appropriate their relatives, to agree how best to respond to changes in their needs.

Care plans were developed collaboratively and included detailed information about people’s life histories, preferences, routines and communication needs. People’s needs were reviewed regularly with their involvement to ensure support remained appropriate.

People and relatives were able to view real time care information through the provider’s electronic records system. One relative told us, “We were given an initial care plan, now kept on a phone app that we can access.” Another relative said, “Staff update the care plan on their phones, like when they come in and leave, so the office knows tasks were completed.”

Daily records showed staff monitored people’s well-being, documented completed tasks and escalated any concerns promptly to office staff so these could be escalated to external health professionals, where needed. A staff member explained, “Changes in people’s needs are usually picked up through daily notes, handovers and calls to the office. If something significant changes, we let the manager know straight away.”

There were some shortfalls in how the health and care needs of people were met, so care was not always joined up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People told us they received the right care and support for them. Where concerns were raised, these related mostly to punctuality and consistency of staff rather than the quality of care delivered. One relative said, “Regular carers are good. Any changes would be around punctuality. I can understand why times can change at the last minute, but I like to be informed.” They added, “We are happy with the service. Carers can vary and more consistency would help, but it is not bad. We are grateful for the help.”

The management team was aware of these concerns and had taken action to improve continuity and predictability. This included introducing smaller staff ‘pods’ to reduce the number of carers working with each person, organising rotas geographically, and monitoring continuity through routine quality and governance processes. These steps demonstrated the provider’s commitment to responding to feedback and improving people’s overall experience.

The provider supplied accurate, up to date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. People received clear information folders, customised to their local area, which explained how the service worked and included guidance on safeguarding, complaints, advocacy and signposting to external organisations that could support their health and well-being. Alternative formats were available where needed.

Care records were accessible to people and, where appropriate, their relatives. These were provided in hard copy or digital form depending on people’s preferences.

Staff understood their responsibilities under GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and followed the provider’s policies on data protection and confidentiality. One staff member told us, “We understand GDPR and know not to share personal information unless it’s appropriate and necessary.”

The provider enabled people to share feedback and raise concerns easily. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and kept them informed about any changes made as a result.

Most people told us they felt comfortable raising concerns, although many said they had never needed to. One person commented, “No need to complain ever. I would go to the office, who are all brilliant and would sort out any concern, I am sure. I have all the relevant numbers.” Where complaints were received, they were acknowledged, investigated and responded to with clear outcomes and actions for learning.

Annual surveys were also used to identify themes and inform service improvements. Although response rates were modest, the provider used additional methods to gather feedback, such as home visits and direct conversations. One person told us, “I have completed a survey now and then. Someone also visits at home to check all is okay and update my care plan.”

The provider ensured people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. People had clear routes to contact the office, including out of hours support. One person told us, “Communication is good with the office; I can contact them anytime.”

People generally described the service as flexible and reliable, with no missed calls. One person said, “More or less visits are on time, and they (staff) stay their allocated time. No missed visits for the last two years; if they are late, they inform me.” Call times were managed and monitored in line with local contractual requirements. Where people preferred alternative call times, the management team discussed this during reviews and adjusted arrangements when capacity allowed.

Staff also had appropriate access to support in an emergency, including out of hours guidance. One staff member explained, “When an incident happens, we call the on-call team, and they advise us on the steps to take. We have completed emergency training, but before attempting anything we always seek guidance from on call.”

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.

A staff handbook clearly set out expectations for proactive anti-discriminatory practice and reinforced the provider’s commitment to addressing concerns. Where issues were raised, the management team responded promptly and took appropriate action to resolve them.

Feedback from surveys and compliments showed people using the service felt respected, protected from bullying or harassment, and supported to live the way they wished. Most respondents reported positive experiences, including feeling safe, having their dignity and human rights upheld, and being encouraged to maintain independence.

People were supported to plan for important life changes in a timely, person-centred way, enabling them to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Where people wished, their preferences were discussed sensitively and clearly recorded in care plans, including decisions such as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), and end-of-life or funeral wishes.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of end-of-life care and the importance of maintaining people’s comfort, dignity and emotional well-being. They worked in partnership with external professionals, including district nurses, GPs and hospice services, to ensure coordinated support. The service also followed compassionate practices after a person’s death, including acknowledging their life and supporting those affected. One staff member told us, “Good end-of-life care is about comfort, dignity and supporting the person and their family. We have the right equipment and work closely with nurses, doctors and other professionals to make sure people are cared for properly.”