Homelium Dorset

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 service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered This key question has been rated 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 service 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 told us the care they received was person centred, and where appropriate, their relatives agreed. Staff told us they had enough information about people’s needs to provide safe care. The provider had an electronic care planning system which meant information was updated or changed instantly. A person told us they felt the service knew them well and said, “They are very nice. They come every day on time, they are reliable. I feel happy with them.” Records showed the person was at the centre of the care documented within the plans.

The service 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 told us they had access to the care they needed to live well. This included seeing their GP or nurse. Relatives were confident in the staff to summon emergency medical advice if needed. The registered manager told us being able to recognise changes was one of the benefits of the way the service was arranged. Smaller staff teams with a senior staff member had meant they could identify changes in a person’s condition quicker. Staff told us they routinely contacted professionals to support people such as, GP, community nurses and occupational therapists. Records showed input from a variety of health and social care professionals. Information was shared through meetings and messaging systems.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were detailed in care and support plans. This information was highlighted if a person had communication difficulties and shared with relevant health and social care professionals. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand. The service adapted to meet people’s individual communication needs.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service actively sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff. Staff meetings and secure messaging systems meant information was continually shared and updated. People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint. A person told us, “I don’t think I would have to ring the office, but I would speak to one of the carers if I was not happy with things.” Everyone was positive and had confidence in the service and the registered manager to address any concerns they had. A complaints policy supported the practice of the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us they received care and support, which was accessible and considered their individual needs. Staff received training in equality and diversity, they told us they supported people to live well. Policies and procedures underpinned all safe working practices, and this was supported by training and ongoing competency monitoring. Each policy and procedure had a consideration of equity, accessibility and safety.

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. People and their relatives told us they were treated fairly, and their rights were respected. Staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about treatment which discriminates, they told us the registered manager would take them seriously. Staff training, guidance and observations meant staff were reminded of their responsibilities. Policies, procedures and working practices within the service were in accordance with relevant legislation to ensure people and staff received fair treatment.

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 were provided with opportunities to discuss their care needs in their last years and days. Care plans were person centred, and initial assessments and regular reviews meant the service had recorded the persons views. It was the service mission to support people to spend their days in at home, in a familiar environment. Records showed working partnerships with external professionals during last month and days.