All For You Home Care Limited

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 remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff said they had all the information they needed about people’s needs to deliver safe and effective care. Records showed each person was central to their care planning, with their preferences and priorities clearly reflected. People received person‑centred care which reflected their individual needs and preferences. One person’s relative told us how they found some staff going above and beyond providing person centred care. The relative told us, “I can really recommend 1 of the carers we call her [staff],I don’t know if that’s her real name but she is absolutely wonderful with how she looks after [person] I want to thank her myself.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us the service worked well with other professionals when needed. This included GPs, social workers, community healthcare teams and pharmacies. Management were knowledgeable about people’s diverse health and social care needs. Staff advocated for people and worked alongside external health professionals to help ensure they received appropriate support with their health needs.

Healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about how the registered manager and staff worked with them to achieve good outcomes for people.

The provider was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw evidence where All For You Home Care Ltd had identified where a person who did not speak English was experiencing significant social isolation due to communication barriers. This impacted their ability to express needs, engage with care, and maintain emotional wellbeing. Rather than relying solely on standard translation methods, the service implemented a proactive, innovative, and highly personalised approach. A staff member who spoke the same language they was recruited to build trust and enable meaningful communication. In addition, bespoke communication tools were developed, including personalised picture cards with the foreign language translations and visual prompts tailored to support day-to-day interactions such as expressing pain, emotions, personal care needs and preferences. To further enhance communication, digital translation applications were introduced to enable real-time, two-way conversations between staff and the individual. The person’s environment was also adapted to reflect their cultural identity and preferences, including access to foreign language television and familiar cultural materials, promoting comfort, dignity, and a sense of belonging.

These tools were fully embedded into daily care practice and consistently used by staff, supported through personalised communication folders and guidance to ensure continuity across the care team. A multi-disciplinary approach was adopted to ensure a holistic and coordinated response, with ongoing review and adaptation of support strategies.

This resulted in a significant reduction in social isolation, alongside a marked improvement in emotional wellbeing. The person became more settled, responsive, and involved in their care, demonstrating increased confidence and trust in staff.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We were provided with mixed feedback by people and relatives regarding the service listening to their concerns. One person’s relative told us, “I have as much contact as I need with the manager via email which is good.” However, other people’s relatives provided us with such feedback as, “I feel that the manager hears what we have to say, but she doesn’t really listen”, and “If I try to speak to the manager, she is never available and very rarely rings me back to discuss the issues. I accommodate the service not the other way around I personally think that the service is not managed properly.”

We saw there were 2 complaints raised with the provider in 2026; both were investigated accordingly to the provider’s complaints policy. There were appropriate systems in place to obtain feedback from people and relatives, however, some people’s relatives told us they have never been approached by the service to provide feedback. We raised this with the registered manager who told us they will contact people and relatives to obtain their feedback and will do another audit of the actual call times on the system against the agreed care plan times to ensure all calls are delivered as planned.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People did not experience discrimination in the way their care was delivered. The provider had effective policies in place to promote equality, diversity and inclusion, and staff had received training in equality, diversity and human rights. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to apply this training in their day‑to‑day practice.

Assessment and care planning processes took account of a wide range of needs, including disability, age, gender, religion, culture and other protected characteristics. This helped ensure people’s individual preferences and identities were recognised and respected, and care was accessible and inclusive.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager assessed and planned for people’s diverse needs, identifying potential barriers to care and taking steps to reduce or remove them. For example, staff were matched with people who spoke the same language, and staff worked closely with people and their relatives to ensure needs were understood and met.

People and their relatives said they were treated fairly and their rights were respected. Staff had access to multiple channels to raise concerns about any discriminatory treatment. Training, guidance, and spot checks helped ensure staff were regularly reminded of their responsibilities. Policies and procedures guided working practices within the service, supported by training and ongoing monitoring.

People were 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.

People’s decisions about emergency treatment were recorded. People and relatives were provided an opportunity to discuss and plan end of life wishes. There was an established process for supporting people in the last days of their lives. At the time of this inspection, the service was not supporting anyone who was receiving care during the final stages of life.