My Homecare Barnet

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The person’s relative told us they were happy with the care provided. However, the provider had not made effective plans to always ensure a person-centred care experience was provided. There were no standby staff if the one member of staff was not available. The person had not been consulted on and involved in the planning for this potential situation. The provider had also not made effective plans to manage other emergencies which could affect the delivery of care.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider made plans to understand the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

There had not been a need for the provider or the member of staff to contact a health professional. The provider had obtained the contact details of the person’s GP. However, given the member of staff’s understanding of the health needs of the person and the provider’s oversight of the quality of the care provided, we were not assured at this stage people’s health needs would be responded to effectively and in a timely way.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had not considered producing this person’s care plan in a format the member of staff who provided the care could also easily understand. There was no detailed information available to the person and their next of kin about what the member of staff had done during their visit.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had planned to review this person’s care after our assessment. This person’s relative felt the provider was responsive when they needed to make changes to the care provided.

A person’s relative was confident the provider would make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The person’s relative told us there had not been a need for this. But, they felt confident the provider would do this if this was needed. They also told us the provider and member of staff were flexible with changes to care visit times, when this was required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

There was not a culture currently established to do this. The provider and member of staff responded to the person and their relative’s requests, but they were not leading this type of advocacy. For example, the member of staff’s understandings of the person’s health risks was limited and the provider was not assessing staff were mindful of this risk and they knew what to do if this situation arose.

People were not always 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.

The provider had not considered this aspect of people’s life. They had not made plans and started talking with the person they cared for, to plan for their wishes and needs at this time. Staff had not been trained to provide end of life care. This meant there could be missed opportunities in the future.