Metro Homecare 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. 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 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. Care was not always delivered when people needed or wanted it. Issues with staff punctuality meant that people had to wait longer than agreed when they required support with their medicines and personal care.

Whilst people told us about problems caused by staff lateness, others told us about the person- centred care they received. For example, a person told us, “The staff I have got are very good, they do everything nicely, just the way I want it.”

Whilst the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, care was not always joined-up, flexible which supported choice and continuity. Issues relating to punctuality and inconsistent staffing arrangements meant people were unclear about how their care would be delivered particularly at weekends.

A professional told us, “When requested to do so, I found the provider responded to concerns immediately and was able to act swiftly to make sure the care changed to meet the ongoing needs of the person which enabled them to continue to live in their own homes.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had information in accessible formats about the services they offered to people. This included pictorial information and materials written in the languages of the people they supported.

The registered manager told us how they had consistently provided a carer to a person who spoke the same language for a number of years. They told us they were able to provide staff who could communicate in a number of different languages reflecting the needs and preferences of people they supported.

Whilst the provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, they did not always listen to what people and their families told them. People told us they were happy when they received consistent care from regular staff. However, people told us they did not always receive consistent support, and they were not always able to contact the provider to raise concerns. One person told us, “The problem is, after the care was all set up, we haven’t heard or seen them since. When I ring up, the person who helped us is never there, so I don’t know how it works.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Due to issues relating to the punctuality of staff, people did not always receive their care when they needed it.

The provider was able to work with community-based health care professionals to ensure people received equitable access to such services when they needed them. The registered manager told us how they liaised directly with services such as GP’s and pharmacies when people struggled to do so. They told us how they helped people to make appointments or re-order medicines if people’s supplies were low.

Staff and leaders did not always ensure that people received good outcomes. Delayed visits meant people did not receive their care and support at agreed times which potentially impacted people’s health outcomes. For example, people did not always receive their medicines at times when it was agreed and prescribed for them. Additionally, people who relied on staff to support them to eat regularly were not always able to do so due to inconsistencies and lateness of staff. We found no evidence anyone had been harmed.

People and their families spoke positively about the help they received in accessing services they needed. A family member told us how the provider had helped their loved one access services when their needs changed. They told us, “They [relative] struggle to use their bed now. I had a word with the lady at the company yesterday. She is going to speak to the GP and occupational therapist to help us sort this out.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. The provider worked closely with people and their families and were able to support people at the end of their lives. The provider understood the importance of ensuring the right levels of care and support were in place as people’s needs changed.

The provider’s plan included the support a person might want at the end of their life. People were given the choice about what they wanted recorded and were respected if they did not want to discuss this with the provider.