Ryedale 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 has changed to requires improvement. This is because people’s needs were not always met consistently, and gaps in care planning and oversight meant the service could not assure effective or well‑coordinated delivery.

This service scored 57 (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 consistently work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to changes in their needs. Care plans and reviews were not consistently completed or updated, meaning staff did not always have clear, person-centred information to guide support. This meant personalised approaches relied too heavily on staff familiarity rather than structured, up‑to‑date guidance.

The provider did not ensure care was consistently joined up or supported by complete information. 2 people had only an initial assessment of need, with no timely development of care plans or risk assessments, leaving staff without the structured guidance needed to ensure continuity across visits. Electronic daily care logs were not routinely reviewed, limiting the provider’s ability to identify changes in people’s needs or adjust care in a coordinated way. Despite these shortfalls, people told us that staff were consistent and supportive, and no agency staff were used. As a result, continuity relied on staff familiarity with individuals rather than robust, embedded systems or supported by complete information.

The service did not always supply complete or up to date information to support people’s care. Some care plans lacked essential ‑date information to support people’s care. Some care plans lacked essential person‑centred details, including communication needs and preferences, particularly where plans had not yet been completed or updated.

Although staff explained tasks and offered choices verbally, the absence of structured, accessible information meant staff did not always have clear guidance to support consistent care delivery. This limited the provider’s ability to ensure information could be shared effectively between staff.

For people with a learning disability, completed plans included clear and accessible information aligned with good practice. However, inconsistency across the service meant the provider did not always supply appropriate or accurate information for everyone.

People told us they felt listened to and able to express their views. No negative feedback was received despite people being given the opportunity to share concerns. People reported that staff responded to their wishes, supported choices about daily routines and activities, and adapted approaches in line with their preferences. Although governance processes were not fully embedded, people’s immediate experiences showed they were involved in decisions about their day‑to‑day care.

People were able to access care and support as planned, and there were no concerns raised about missed or late calls in the evidence available. Staff were familiar with people’s routines and ensured they received the support required. For people with a learning disability and autistic people, staff training and individualised support helped ensure equity in access to care, communication and activities.However, the lack of structured monitoring systems limited the provider’s ability to formally evidence equity of access.

People with a learning disability experienced positive outcomes. This included involvement in daily routines, choices about food and activities, and access to the community. Staff demonstrated an understanding of sensory needs and communication differences, supported by training in autism and learning disability.

However, inconsistent care planning and a lack of timely review processes meant the provider did not always ensure outcomes were monitored or inequalities identified. While lived experience was positive, systems to ensure equitable outcomes for all people were not consistently embedded.

Care plans were not consistently developed or reviewed in a timely way, meaning longer term planning was not always clear or reflective of people’s current needs. Information to support people’s end of life preferences, choices and wishes was not routinely captured, limiting the provider’s ability to plan proactively for future care. For people with a learning disability, planning included activities, communication needs and community access, but the wider service did not demonstrate consistent or forward-looking planning for all individuals.