Right at Home Camden, Hampstead & Golders Green

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

People received personalised, holistic care that met needs. People were at the centre of how care was planned, with the involvement of their friends and family. People experienced continuity of care as they were supported by the same staff who they trusted and understood their care needs. People’s care plans were person-centred, reflected their beliefs and preferences and protected their rights. The service’s complaints and monitoring systems ensured people, relatives and staff could provide feedback about the service.

This service scored 79 (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 were very complimentary about the personalised care they received and the beneficial impact it had on people’s wellbeing. Relatives said, “It's been a very positive experience” and had commented, “We are extremely pleased with the carers, they are all wonderful.” A person said, “They have got to know us well and look after us, they know how we want to be cared for.” The managers and staff made extra efforts to go above and beyond people's expected care arrangements to provide person-centred care. For example, on being informed a person was feeling upset earlier in the day the registered manager then visited to encourage them out for a special impromptu lunch. This helped the person feel emotionally supported and more positive. After a care worker spent time developing a meaningful and trusted relationship with another person this meant their partner felt confident and supported enough to go out themselves for the first time in over two years. This care improved the wellbeing of both the person and those close to them. People and those important to them were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care so that it was always centred around them and their needs. Care plans were very personalised to reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs and things that were most significant to them. For example, a plan highlighted how important a pet was to a person and how this featured in approaches known to help them when anxious and avoid escalating upset. Another plan was specific in how staff should act with discretion in certain circumstances to minimise distress for a person while keeping them engaged with their care.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people’s needs and how to adapt their approaches to providing individual care. A supervisor described how they emphasise providing personalised care during staff inductions and training. The service leaders also shared examples of extra efforts taken to promote person centred support. The director had driven and accompanied people to visit prospective day centres and residential care placements when a re-assessment of their developing needs indicated such provision may be suitable for them. The registered manager had helped a person resolve issues with their driving licence which was causing them worry. Staff said the registered manager “goes out of [her/his] way and is very approachable and very kind.” The registered manager required staff to spend unhurried time with people. The registered manager stated, “We encourage staff to stay and talk with people. Every one of our calls has an element of companionship.” This helped mitigate risks of loneliness for people. People confirmed this and a relative said, “They take time to sit and chat with [the person].”

People experienced continuity of care as they were supported by a consistent staff team who they got to know well. The helped people to develop relationships of trust with those staff. A person told us, “They will organise a new carer to shadow an experienced carer so they can learn my needs.” This helped to ensure people also received care from staff who knew their preferences and how to support them. People said staff were almost always on time and they never missed any care visits.

Staff and service records confirmed staff provided care to the same people regularly. Staff said they had time to meet people’s needs and were not rushed. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s care and support needs.

Professionals we spoke with indicated the service worked with them to people received joined up care. One professional commented that the service “went beyond their scope of practice [and] showed compassion and lot of flexibility to make things happen for the person” when trying to accommodate a person’s changing needs and preferences. Professionals said care staff and the registered manager escalated concerns about people’s wellbeing appropriately and in good time.

The service’s systems and procedures enabled them to provide consistent, continuity of care. Staff found the digital care planning and rostering systems easy to use and told us they received their schedules of care visits “at least a week, sometimes two weeks in advance”. Schedules were also sent to people in a timely manner.

People and their relatives were provided with information about the service and their care and support. The registered manager also used staff profiles to let people know more about the staff who were visiting them.

Staff supported people with their communication needs and provided information Staff used white boards in some people’s homes to write clear information to help them orientate their day, such as reminding them which staff would be visiting next. The registered manager was aware of the need to make information accessible to people. For example, they printed information and plans in different formats when people could not access these digitally.

The service’s systems and procedures enabled them to provide consistent, continuity of care. Staff found the digital care planning and rostering systems easy to use and told us they received their schedules of care visits “at least a week, sometimes two weeks in advance”. Schedules were also sent to people in a timely manner.

People and those important to them had opportunities to speak up and have their voices heard about the service. For example, in planning and review people’s care, giving feedback and raising concerns or complaints. Relatives told us, “I am totally involved in [the person]’s care” and “The office has been excellent, easily contactable and responsive to changes.” A person told us, “[The registered manager] checks in regularly and it's easy to get hold of them if needed.” People and relatives were involved in deciding who provided their care ensuring they were confident they would have positive relationships with their staff.

Staff demonstrated they spent time with people using the service and knew how to recognise and report issues so they could be addressed. They were confident they would be listened to when they did. The registered manager saw complaints and concerns as an opportunity for learning and improving the service.

There were appropriate systems in place for receiving, recording and responding to complaints and concerns. These were dealt with promptly. The registered manager maintained a log of complaints and issues and reviewed these to identify any potential themes and learning for the service. However, there had only been one complaint in the six months prior to our assessment. The service invited feedback from people and staff with annual surveys. The registered manager took action in response to the findings.

People received their care and support when they needed to and in planned way that met their needs and protected their rights. Their care was reviewed regularly to ensure this. Staff supported people to have good access other services.

The staff and the registered manager regularly liaised with other services to help make adjustments to people’s care and advocate for their wellbeing. For example, they helped people access healthcare assessments and equipment for their homes so they could be supported safely.

Health and social care professionals we spoke with had no concerns with how people were able to access the service. A professional told us the registered manager had acted very flexibly and made numerous changes to a person’s care arrangements in order to accommodate their preferences.

The provider's systems and processes promoted equitable access to timely care.

The feedback we received from people and their relatives indicated they were happy with their care, experienced positive outcomes and did not identify any discrimination and inequality concerns. One person told us, “It's the best agency I have ever had.”

Staff demonstrated any awareness of people's religious and cultural needs. The registered manager set out how they consulted with others important to a person when they may not be able to express their views.

The providers system and processes supported equitable treatment. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics. People’s care plans set out how to meet such needs. For example, a person’s plan made clear what their cultural and religious beliefs meant to them in practice and how this informed their sense of identity and care preferences.

At the time of this assessment the service was not providing end of life care to anyone. Feedback from people and relatives clearly demonstrated they were involved in planning people’s care and there was no indication of concerns regarding planning for their future.

The registered manager explained how the service worked with people at the end of their lives. This included agreeing a person-centred care plan that “keeps them in control” and set outs out their wishes and cultural preferences, nutritional support, pain management and working with healthcare professionals and palliative care specialists to provide a dignified and pain-free death that is as comfortable as possible. We saw evidence the service supported people and their families with particular care and sensitivity when planning to move to another service as people’s needs progressed.

The provider had appropriate systems and processes in place for supporting people to plan for their future and provide end of life care and had policies in place to support these processes. Staff completed training in end of life care. People’s care plans clearly set out when they had an agreed 'do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNARCPR) protocol in place and where this was located.