- Homecare service
Winncare
Report from 23 October 2024 assessment
Contents
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
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. 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.
Person-centred Care
People and relatives were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care, so it was centred around them and their needs. Relatives confirmed they were kept informed with changes to people’s needs and involved in decision making. A relative said, “[Staff] would contact me to ask any questions or pass on concerns.” People received the most appropriate care and support for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. Staff spoke about the different levels of support people received; and people’s care plans were tailored to their individual needs and preferences, detailing any reasonable adjustments in place. For example: hoists, walking frames or wheelchairs.
Care provision, Integration and continuity
People’s care and support was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs, from services that were coordinated and responsive. The service worked flexibly alongside relatives; the different aspects of people’s care clearly delegated and logged in care plans. For example: who was responsible for ordering medicines, shopping, cleaning etc. People were supported by small teams of staff to ensure continuity of care and continuity audits were carried out to review this. A relative said, “Continuity of care is good.”
Providing Information
People could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they could understand and met their communication needs. The service had and Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy in place and the service user guide detailed invoicing arrangements, charges and payments. People confirmed the service communicated with them about changes to the times of visits or expected staff.
Listening to and involving people
People knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care including, how to raise any concerns or issues. Relatives told us they received annual surveys which asked for their feedback on the service. The complaints policy was included in the service user guide for ease of access, and people confirmed they knew who to complain to. A person using the service said, “I’d just ring the registered manager, but I’ve never had to complain.”
Equity in access
People could access care and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them, including out of normal hours and in emergencies. The registered manager spoke about situations when people’s support had been flexible. For example: early morning visits to enable attendance at a local day centre, and additional support in response to declining health. The registered manager and senior staff covered the 24 hour on-call service, and we received examples of extra support being provided in response to emergencies.
Equity in experiences and outcomes
The service complied with equality and human rights requirements including; avoiding discrimination, regarding the needs of people with protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. The service user guide stated, ‘[People] have the right not to be discriminated against for any reason such as race, age, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical and financial circumstances and have all such needs respected and accepted.’ During assessment, we received no concerns about discrimination within the service.
Planning for the future
At the time of assessment, the service was not supporting anyone in receipt of end-of-life care. However, staff received training to enable them to deliver good quality, compassionate end-of-life care; and additional developmental opportunities with the local hospice had been organised, should this be required.