16 Westmoreland Road Also known as Quality of Life Homecare 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 service scored 68 (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 had made improvements to help ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. We saw the provider had recently introduced improvements to care plans so they included more person-centred information about people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Plans included details about a person’s life history and former employment, people and activities that were important to them, and their likes and preferences. Some plans still lacked some personalising information, such as how a person would like their personal care provided and what grooming products and effects they preferred to use. A person with a learning disability’s care plan described their likes, preferences and important relationships. However, it did not clearly set out how staff should support them to access new experiences and opportunities that reflected their interests, preferences and aspirations.

Staff we spoke with, though, demonstrated an awareness of people’s individual needs and feedback from people and relatives supported this. Care workers told us, “I get to know the people I support well and I familiarise myself with their care and what’s important to them” and “I work in a person-centred way by seeing the client as the boss and I listen to them.” People and relatives said they were involved in their care planning and were happy with the quality of care they received. A relative commented, “I have seen their care plan and I am really involved with [their family member]. All the office information and the copy of the care plan are in a folder.” Staff reported that care plans were helpful for providing care. Staff comments included, “The information in care plans is clear” and “Care is around the person, it's important to know the basics like what people like and dislike, this is in the care plan.”

The provider understood the health and care needs of the people using the service and worked to ensure their care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and relatives said they were usually supported by the same staff. This meant they could develop relationships of trust with staff who knew their care needs well. However, some told us new staff or staff who didn’t visit them regularly needed a better handover of information about the person they were visiting.

People were supported by staff who met their communication needs. However, the provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. The provider told us a significant majority of people using the service did not speak English as their first language. However, the provider had not considered ensuring such people received information about their care in formats that directly met their communication needs.

We saw recently updated care plans that set out people’s communication needs and how staff should meet these when providing care. This included when a person lived with a visual impairment, needed more time and a slowed pace to understand things, or when looking out for changes in a person’s behaviour that might indicate they were not feeling well. Some staff said they did not support people with communication needs, but they had attended communication awareness training and this “showed us how to use other methods to communicate.” A care worker told us, “I try learn a few words to speak to them in their language to make things feel more comfortable and familiar.”People and relatives said staff communicated well with people. A relative told us, “The care workers are very friendly and speak Gujarati, [the person]’s language.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider had processes in place for people and relatives to share feedback or raise complaints about their care. People, relatives and staff said they felt able to raise concerns and that they would be listened to. Most people and relatives said they had no complaints about the service. Their comments included, “If I had a complaint I would speak up”, “The care team listen and deal with concerns” and “[The management] listen and respond.” Staff said, “I feel I can talk to them and they respond or take action on it.Service records demonstrated the provider investigated complaints and took action to resolve them. Learning from some incidents and complaints was discussed at regular staff meetings.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. While people’s records of daily care had not always provided detailed and person-centred information, people reported they received continuity of care and that staff understood their needs. This meant people could access the care they required when they needed it. A person told us, “I have had my regular carer for more than one year. They do not need my instruction to do this or that. They are an expert in everything.” Relatives also said people received care when needed. For example, a relative described how care staff returned to someone to provide personal care support after their care visit had finished. Senior staff provided out of hours support to ensure staff always had access to support and advice.

Staff and leaders 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, relatives and staff we spoke with did not report any equality or discrimination concerns and described staff working with people to understand their needs and experiences. A relative told us, “[The person] has also a very good relationship with [the care staff]. I talk to them all the time about [the person’s] condition.” A staff member commented, “I find that clients are often lonely and feel distressed by this. I think talking with them even for five minutes is the best medicine.” Staff completed equality and diversity training to promote their awareness ofdiscrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people using services.

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 providing end of life care to anyone at the time of our inspection. The managers explained their approach to supporting people at this time, including working with the person and their relatives, health care professionals and a local hospice. Care plans documented when people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions or a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) in place. Service records showed staff had completed end of life care awareness training.