Choices Homecare (Rotherham North & Doncaster)

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 54 (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. We received mixed feedback from people about their care and support. Some people told us staff knew them well, whilst others told us staff lacked knowledge and did not always communicate well with them. Care records required improvements to ensure they contained up to date information about people's needs and wishes. Some care records were generic and contained similar information.

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. Some people told us they often received different care staff and would prefer the same staff. Some people said they would prefer female staff, which wasn't always provided. We received mixed feedback from people about their care and support. A person said, “I do not know who is coming through the door. They will change the rota in 10 minutes. Last night a carer came and said it shouldn’t be me, last minute change. They did not let me know.” Whilst a relative said, “They [staff] are kind and caring. They are pleasant and cheery. They make sure [name’s] dignity is upheld. They are good. They know what they are doing. Chat to [name], they will ask questions about their life.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Improvements were required to ensure people were provided with accessible information in formats which met their communication methods. The manager had recognised this and planned to provide people with easy-to-read information. However, this required embedding at the time of our assessment. People had communication care plans in place to guide staff about how people communicated, however these were vague and did not always contain enough information. For example, 1 person's plan did not detail their ability to write, to enable them to consent to their care.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Feedback surveys were being provided to people at the time of our assessment. These showed mixed responses from people and relatives. Some people raised concerns about staff allocations and call times, and not feeling concerns would be listened to. Other people gave positive responses about being provided with good care, from kind staff. One person told us, “It is easy to contact the office, but nothing happens.” Whilst a relative said, “I can contact the office 24/7.” We received mixed feedback from staff about if they felt listened to. Staff supervisions and appraisals were not always consistently undertaken in line with the providers own policy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Records evidenced staff accessed external healthcare professionals for people where required. Such as contacting health professionals and emergency services in response to emergency incidents. People had access to speech and language therapists and occupational therapists. People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Complaints and compliments systems were in place. However, we could not be assured these were effectively used. We found a complaint which was raised by a person which was not appropriately recorded, actioned or responded to. Following our assessment, the manager assured us they were implementing more robust auditing of people’s records, to ensure they captured any concerns or complaints raised.

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. A person told us, “Not discussed the future. My mobility has gotten worse.” A relative said, “We haven’t had any discussions about end-of-life care.”