Loving Angels Care (West and North Northamptonshire)

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 71 (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 plans contained personalised information and were detailed, person-centred and included people's like and dislikes such as how they liked their tea and how they prefer to be supported with their personal care. People and where appropriate their relatives were involved with reviews of the care provided.

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 received care and support from the same group of staff, where possible, which enabled continuity of care. The provider had ensured staff completed specific training for the people they supported. This included training for the use of an epi pen. (An adrenaline auto-injector for the emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.A [Person] told us their relative is risk of allergen attack and that the carer has had specific training to use an epi-pen if an incident were to occur.

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

People and their relatives were able to access their care plans and daily notes via the electronic care system, paper-based care plans and risk assessments were also kept at people's property. We saw people’s care plans were produced in their first language. People and their relatives felt they were able to contribute to their care planning and felt involved.

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.

People had care folder in their homes which contained feedback on care form. People we spoke to were confident to call the office if required. The service has a complaints policy in place. One person told us they had left Loving Angels Care and went to another provider but lost trust in them and came back to Loving Angels Care. However, another person told us, “The carers don’t come on time. They are supposed to come from 3pm to 5pm, pretty regularly they come at 2.30pm and are gone at 4pm. They have been 45 minutes late. It's not convenient that they don’t show up on time and I have spoken about it. There is a case manager dealing with it. I feel it would be best to change care providers. We don’t even get the same carers, it’s not working for us, there is no opportunity for my relative to build and rapport with the carers, she doesn’t get to know any of them, so she is reluctant to let them wash her hair as there is no trust and she doesn’t feel comfortable with carers she doesn’t know.

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

People’s care records showed they were supported to access external health professionals when required. One person told us [Person] mentioned that their relative had recently had blood in their urine; the carers alerted the family to this and also contacted 111, which then made contact to the district nurse. [Person] said they are “quite proactive”.

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.

People were in control of the care they received. The service changed call times to accommodate people’s appointments and job commitments. There was evidence of people’s 'right to refuse care’ being respected.

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 care plans included information about what is important to them. Staff had received training in end-of-life care. At the time of our assessment the service was supporting a person receiving end of life care, who had previously moved to a different provider before returning to the service.