Aurora Home Care 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. This key question was previously rated good. The key question is now rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met in the most person-centred way.

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.

The provider did not consistently ensure that care was person-centred. Records lacked detail about what mattered to people, their goals, and aspirations. Care plans were often incomplete and task-focused rather than reflecting individual preferences and needs. There was limited evidence of meaningful reviews or involvement of people in shaping their care plans on an ongoing basis. While staff were described as kind and respectful, the absence of personalised information in care records meant opportunities were missed to tailor care effectively.

People generally received care from consistent staff who knew them well. The rota system supported continuity where practicable and this was overseen by an experienced care co-ordinator. Relatives expressed confidence in staff knowledge and reliability. One said, “They are quietly confident.”

Staff were punctual and the service maintained an effective on-call system to manage out-of-hours needs. However, there were gaps in care planning and risk assessments, which limited assurance that care was always delivered in the most effective way. Links with external professionals were present and needed to be further developed to ensure the service looked outward for good practice examples and support.

The provision of information was inconsistent. Some people and relatives could access care records online, while others relied on carers to check rotas or provide updates. There was a lack of structured process for gathering client feedback, and communication about changes or reviews was limited. The electronic system lacked clarity and person-centred content. These shortfalls meant people were not always fully informed about their care. The provider had plans to improve newsletters, surveys and other means of keeping people updated, but had at the time of inspection not fully implemented these.

Although people felt staff listened to them during visits, there was little evidence of systematic involvement in care planning or reviews. Some relatives reported good communication, but others said they had minimal contact with the office. Feedback processes were informal, and there was no structured approach to capturing people’s views. This limited the provider’s ability to act on concerns, themes or preferences consistently.

Feedback was mixed, although largely positive regarding phone contact from the service, when it was necessary. One relative said, “When we first used the service and we rang at quarter to 8 in the morning they answered. If there’s any problem. I had phone calls to make sure everything’s ok and if there’s any issues.” Another said, “I’ve had no contact.”

The provider needed to do more to embed consistent ways of listening to and acting on feedback. They planned to seek people’s feedback through surveys.

The service could provide care 24 hours a day and generally met people’s needs for timely support. Visit times were agreed with consideration of preferences, and the provider made efforts to maintain continuity. Gender preferences were respected when raised.

Care and support was tailored to reduce potential inequalities when people accessed health and care systems. Most people described positive experiences of care, highlighting staff kindness and respect. Relatives said they would recommend the service, and people felt safe and supported. However, gaps in care planning and risk assessments meant outcomes were not always optimised, particularly for those with complex needs such as diabetes or mental health conditions. People’s experiences of health and care were described as positive; the provider needed to do much more to document this.

Future planning was limited. End-of-life care planning was not well developed, and care records lacked detail about people’s wishes and aspirations. Governance systems to support proactive planning were still being built and were not yet effective. This meant the provider could not demonstrate a robust approach to anticipating and meeting future needs. The registered manager was responsive to guidance and signposting.