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, particularly their goals and aspirations. Care plans were not individualised and sometimes incomplete. At times they were 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 received care from consistent staff who knew them well. The provider ensured there was a continuity of care wherever practicable and this was overseen by an experienced care co-ordinator. There was a core, stable staff team supporting people. Relatives expressed confidence in staff knowledge and reliability.

Staff were punctual, handed over key information effectively, 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. 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 assessment had not fully implemented these.

Although people felt staff listened to them in their own home, there was little evidence of systematic involvement in care planning or reviews. No concerns were raised about communications with office staff and people who used the service did visit the provider’s office – they had strong bonds with staff over and above their immediate care staff. 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. The electronic records system had a ‘post-it’ facility to make notes but this was not consistently applied or analysed.

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 met people’s needs for timely support. People’s care was agreed with consideration of preferences, and the provider made efforts to maintain continuity. Staff ensured people were able to access the wider health and care system when needed.

People described positive experiences of care, highlighting staff kindness and respect. Relatives and external professionals had confidence in the service, and people felt safe and supported. Staff advocated for people to get the support they needed.

People’s experiences of health and care were described as positive; the provider needed to do 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.