Homecare Services (Bury)

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.

People’s care was planned in an individualised way. Care plans were clearly created with input from the individual and their care team. Each care plan contained different sections, ensuring they were person centred and were individual to the person.Records included personalised daily routines, so staff knew what tasks they were to be completed upon each visit.

People and their relatives told us care was provided in a personalised way and plans reviewed on a regular basis. This ensured information reflected their individual wishes and preferences. We were told, “The support that I get is very person centred and the carers never assume and they always ask for my consent before undertaking a task” and “My care plan is reviewed and I can discuss any new ways that I would prefer care to be delivered and I am listened to.”

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.

Staff said they would escalate any concerns or changes in need to senior staff, so that relevant referrals could be made. Healthcare professionals told us the service worked well with them to ensure good outcomes for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Senior staff spoke with people and their relatives about what they could expect from the service. People and their relatives were actively involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support. These were reviewed after the initial 6-week period, asking people to reflect on what was working well or if would they like any changes.

Communication was covered as part of the care planning process and consideration was given to assistive technology. The provider understood their duties under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and made sure alternative communication formats were available, when required.

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 a complaints policy in place; however, we were told no recent complaints had been received. People and their relatives told us, “The management and staff listen to us. We are aware of the complaint’s procedure. We have no complaints about the care though” and “I have all the details of how to contact the office. I know how to make a complaint and how they would investigate it if needed.”

A social care professional involved with the service said managers were responsive to any issues raised with them. They told us, “Complaints and safeguarding concerns are extremely rare, and on the rare occasions they arise, they are addressed promptly and professionally.”

People and their relatives also had an opportunity to feedback on the service through the surveys distributed. Results showed people were 100% satisfied with the overall service provided and would recommend the service.

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

The provider worked in close partnership with health and social care partners to ensure people had access to the support, equipment and services they needed when they needed it. Feedback from health and social care professionals included, “The management team is highly proactive and collaborates effectively with us” and “External partners have confirmed the service promotes fair access for people.”

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

Individualised plans were in place reflecting the care and support people wanted and needed. Staff completed training in equality and diversity. Regular spot checks, supervisions, and support were provided to check learning was put into practice. Staff told us they were confident in carrying out their role and felt they were effectively equipped to meet the individual needs of people.

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.

The service was not currently supporting anyone at the end of their life. However, staff understood the importance of planning and supporting people at the end of their life based on their individual needs and wishes. We were told 2 staff were completing training in end-of-life care. Once completed they would disseminate their learning and offer support to colleagues to enable tailored end of life care planning.

We were told the service maintained contact with family after people’s death. The service recognised the impact of losing a family member. The relative of 1 person who had been supported by the service told us, “They treated [relative] with dignity, kindness,skill,and respect. This enhanced her life and made it possible to stay in her own home till the end.”