Blue River Home Care Waltham Abbey Also known as Blue River Home Care Greater London

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.

Pre-assessments were not recorded and care plans were not always up to date or reflective of people’s current needs. Despite this, care workers and the registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and were able to describe how care was delivered in a person-centered way in practice. This meant people generally received care that reflected their individual preferences. However, the lack of accurate and up-to-date records meant the provider could not always demonstrate how people’s needs were assessed, reviewed and updated. This increased the risk that changes in people’s needs may not be consistently identified or communicated, particularly if staff were unfamiliar with the person.

The provider did not always demonstrate that care was consistently joined up, flexible or supported continuity. Although people told us they were happy with the care they received and spoke positively about their care workers, records did not always evidence how care was coordinated across services or reviewed in response to changing needs. One person said, “I would say they care about me.” A relative told us, “[Care worker] is just so helpful and [relative] gets on so well with [them] and feels comfortable with [them].”

Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences and were able to describe how care was coordinated to maintain continuity. People were supported with a consistent staff team. However, records were not always accurate, complete or up to date and did not consistently demonstrate how care was planned, coordinated or reviewed. This meant the provider could not always evidence that care was fully joined up or responsive to people’s changing needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Although people received care in line with their preferences, not everyone was aware of their care plans or had access to information about their care. This meant people were not always supported to fully understand how their care was planned or delivered. Records did not consistently demonstrate that information had been shared with people. However, people spoke positively about the care they received and felt able to communicate with staff, which helped ensure their day to day needs were understood and met. For example one person told us, “I would feel comfortable about raising any complaints.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care,treatmentand support.Onepersontold us,“I have absolutely no complaints whatsoever about any of them. If I did need to complain I do know howtobut I amvery happywith the carers and the care that I receive.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff recognised that people’s needs included social interaction as well as practical support and ensured these needs were met as part of their care. A member of staff told us, “A lot of people are lonely and they need a conversation. I pay an interest in their life.”

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. Staff completed training to help them understand the inequalities people might face and the provider’s policies also reflected this.

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. Not all care plans contained information about people’s wishes in relation to end of life care or demonstrated that these discussions had taken place. This meant the provider could not always evidence how people were supported to consider and record their preferences for future care, including decisions about end of life.