Amicable Care Ltd

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

The service was responsive and has been rated good. Staff understood people’s individual needs. People received good continuity of care from a stable, reliable care staff team. People and relatives were able to contact the management team and said there was good communication from the service.

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.

People and relatives said care staff understood each person’s individual needs and preferences when providing support. Their comments included, “[Staff] speak to me, ask how I am, know how to get me ready and know what to do” and “[Staff] know how to manage her, they do what she asks, and they understand dementia.”

The management team and care staff were familiar with each person’s needs and how they wanted to be supported.

People and relatives praised the reliability and familiarity of care staff. Their comments included, “Some staff have been coming years now and I have got to know them” and “They are regular staff, always turn up and let me know if there is going to be a change.”

The management team arranged care calls within small zones. Staff were familiar with the local community areas they covered and required little travel time to complete their rounds .

We received no concerns from partners about the continuity of care provided by this local service.

Staff rotas and daily care records showed the same care staff supported people, which ensured good continuity of care.

People and relatives said they had sufficient information about the service. They told us it was easy to get in touch with the management team if they wanted any further information. One person commented, “I have contacted them via email and I can phone if I need to. I always get an immediate response.”

The provider had a written service user guide which included information about the service and people’s rights. This had recently been updated and was to be provided to each person.

Assessment record did not include people’s communication abilities or needs so it was unclear how people were supported to understand information.

People and relatives confirmed they knew how to contact the management team and would be comfortable about making a complaint if necessary. One person described how they had raised an issue in the past. They were satisfied with the way this had been managed and happy with the outcome.

The management team kept a log of any complaints. This was reviewed each month as part of the provider’s quality audit schedule. There had been no complaints received since the last inspection.

Processes were in place to investigate and respond to complaints. The provider engaged frequently with people and their representatives. The provider sought people’s views during spot checks and surveys.

People said they were treated fairly and had not experienced any discrimination. People said they could discuss how and when their care was delivered, particularly if they thought care could be provided in a different way.

The provider was committed to making sure people received care and support at the times they needed it.

We received no concerns from partners about people’s equity of access to this service.

The provider ensured the calls were rostered for the times people needed them. Managers provided out-of-hours support for staff to deal with queries and to advise.

People were asked about their experience of the service during spot checks and annual surveys. In the most recent survey one person wrote, “[Staff] keep me at centre of decisions and are happy to adjust my level of care dependent on my mood and feelings.”

The management team and staff aimed to provide non-discriminatory care that met people’s individual needs.

The management team and staff aimed to provide non-discriminatory care that met people’s individual needs. The provider gave people written information that included their rights to equality. This could be made available in other formats if needed.

People we spoke with did not give us feedback on whether the service was involved in planning for their future.

The provider kept a log of who had a ‘do not resuscitate’ agreement in place and where it was held so this could be imparted to emergency services if necessary.

Consideration of future wishes was recorded as who to contact in the event of an emergency and who would deal with the person’s passing.