Care at Home Group Cheshire West and Wirral

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

We assessed 3 quality statements under this key question. Our rating for this key question has deteriorated to requires improvement. This was because we received feedback from people in relation to the care provided not always supporting their staffing preferences and it not always being easy to give feedback. Some people said frequent staff changes had impacted on them. They did not know whether their care had been reviewed and were not always able to get through to the office. Managers had acted since our previous inspection to focus on people’s preferences and timings of their care calls, they were also undertaking quality reviews. This was an improving picture but needed to be fully embedded.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s feedback varied in relation to the coordination of their care. Some said the service did not always meet their personal preferences. For example, frequent staff changes made it difficult to get to know staff. Some told us they preferred female carers, but this wasn’t always possible. Whilst other people said they had good relationships with staff who knew them well. Comments included, “I don’t think they do know him really. There are a few that get on well, but there are so many staff changes” and “[Name] wanted someone there to help with a shower, but not a male, so on Saturday she didn’t shower and waited until a female carer came.” The service had also received compliments from people about the care provided. For example, “All of you have been wonderful caring for (name).”

Staff feedback indicated they were aware of the importance of ensuring people were at the centre of their care and respecting their choices. They had access to care plans which included individualised information about the person’s likes and preferences. They told us, “I shadowed staff and saw how people wanted to be treated, and how they like things done” and “You ask what they like.” Managers had acted since our previous inspection to focus on meeting people’s staffing preferences and timings of their care calls. This was an improving picture and needed to be fully embedded. Comments from quality assurance reviews recently undertaken supported this.

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.

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

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about the ease in sharing feedback. Some knew how to raise concerns or issues about their care, but others told us they were not always able to get through to the office. Comments included “I have a booklet with numbers and who to contact to complain” and “I can’t often get through to the office when I try to ring, and they don’t return the call” and “There’s been issues in the past, but it’s always sorted out.” Whilst some people were unclear if their care plan had been reviewed, they were positive that the new manager was listening to issues or concerns and where necessary had started to make various improvements. Comments included, “Things are much improved but some work still needed” and “The manager has been out before I think."

Managers were able to describe the actions they were taking to address and improve outcomes where complaints and other concerns had been raised. The new manager was in the process of getting out and about speaking with people using the service and staff. The provider had an action plan and the manager had some priorities for improvements. The provider had focused on more regular and frequent quality assurance and monitoring calls to gather feedback from people.

The provider had a system form reviewing people’s care. Actions had been taken since our previous inspection to ensure there were carried out more consistency and issues were addressed. Quality assurance calls and annual surveys were being carried out to seek feedback from people. The registered manager was analysing these and addressing any concerns. This again was an improving picture. The provider was in the process of amending how telephone calls were managed, to ensure they were dealt with more effectively.

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.

Overall, people’s individual needs were taken into account to ensure people received equity in experiences and outcomes.

Staff feedback suggested they understood the right for people to be treated fairly and for their individual needs to be met. For example, the registered manager was aware of the potential impact of age discrimination of decision making and the importance respecting people’s wishes and choices.

Systems were in place to obtain information about people’s individual needs and wishes. The provider had an equality and diversity policy. Assessments and care plans considered people’s individual care and support needs, including their personal identity and how any cultural or religious needs impacted on them. Information was available in alternative formats. The provider had a service user guide which was shared with people, to provide information about the service, including contacts details and how to make a complaint.

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