Home Instead

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

Managers made sure staff were given appropriate training and supported to treat people equally and fairly and reduce the risk of them being excluded from receiving care and support they were entitled to. Managers used people’s feedback to improve care to reduce any barriers people might experience due to their protected characteristics.

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.

There was mixed feedback from people and their relatives in response to being fully informed and engaged in reviews of their care. With some people and relatives raising concerns about call timings impacting on their care. One relative told us, “They switch rotas at the last minute and if they finish 15 minutes early and I say they can go now the office says that they have to wait. This could make them late for their next call. The caring does not need improving, just the `hanging around`, they should be able to go. If they are running late they should give me a courtesy call to tell me. I mentioned this and they do that now." Another relative told us, “Yes, everything is fine. The staff do tell information to each other, my family member has skin management needs, and the staff communicated this to each other just fine. I rang just after Christmas to change from two carers to one, but two turned up and it was a bit of a muddle but it was probably my fault. I don’t know their name, but a person has been out a few times to check that things are okay.” Another person said, “We haven’t needed to contact them with concerns; but they could improve by listening to the patient more. It`s too early to say about recommending them.”

Staff we spoke with following our site assessment, showed a good understanding of the need to be responsive to people's needs and ensuring colleagues were kept informed of changes and care plans were kept updated. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusivity and person centred care.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider’s service user survey showed an action plan had been developed following feedback from people and their relatives. There was limited information provided to show the provider was meeting the Accessible Information standard.

The provider had developed service user guides tailored to each geographical area the service covered. Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire. These guides detailed the specific Local Authority and Integrated Care Board contacts for people and information on safeguarding or how to raise a concern or complaint.

The provider had a business continuity plan in place, which detailed information on the safe storage and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) arrangements for the service. this ensured that people’s personal information was stored securely. Staff had completed training in GDPR.

The majority of people and relatives gave feedback their care was tailored to their own specific needs and preferences. People were consulted about their care to ensure that their diverse needs were taken into consideration.

Staff we spoke with understood the importance of involving people in their care. One staff member told us, “I understand the need to respect people's wishes and feelings, to ask for consent before providing care, and the preferred terms of address for people.”

The service user survey showed the provider had attempted some analysis of the feedback given by people and their relatives and had sought to implement some improvements and shared this with staff in meetings. Staff gave feedback they were informed of any issues identified in meetings.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Feedback obtained from calls made by our Expert by Experience showed that people and their relatives had discussed end of life care where this was appropriate. Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) and Respect forms were in place where this was relevant to their care planning needs. These were recorded in people’s care plans. One relative told us, “No, we didn’t talk about end of life care but we did talk about DNAR.”

We discussed the care planning process for people with the registered manager, as they hold us of a high number of ‘fast-track’ palliative care packages, with ICB Commissioners across the patch. The registered manager advised if a person was receiving a palliative support package and their condition changed, they could change the information in the system straight away, for example syringe drivers would be put in place by District Nursing Teams, any medicine changes would be updated and this would be reviewed by the care co-ordinators in the care plan.

Staff had received training in end of life care and the safe handling of medication.