Lillie-Rose Home Care

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 – this means we looked for evidence that the provider 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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We reviewed care plans which were person centred, tailored to people’s individual needs and wishes and evidenced involvement of people, relatives and relevant professionals ensuring people were at the centre of their care.

For example, care plans included an “All About Me” section with detailed information regarding people’s likes and dislikes, life history, next of kin and hobbies/interests as well as any advanced decisions. Staff were matched to people in line with these preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care plans contained detailed specific information regarding people’s diverse health and care needs. For example, one care plan contained details regarding a person’s care needs around diabetes including the support required with blood sugar monitoring and clear information on signs and symptoms for staff to be vigilant for and action to take.

The provider, people and relatives and external professionals gave examples of how the provider worked with them to ensure people’s care was joined-up and flexible and supported continuity of care including effective communication regarding people’s health needs and flexibility in visit days and times to support with appointments.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had access to their care plan and daily notes via the electronic system the provider used however they recognised that not everyone was comfortable with this and would provide an alternative means of communication including sitting and discussing information with people.

We saw the provider had sent out information in different formats to accommodate people’s different communication needs, including a version of the complaint's procedure in easy-read format.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People had a clear understanding of how to raise concerns and complaints and when this had occurred, people had received a prompt response from the provider and kept updated. One relative whose loved one had a new carer told us, “I had an email last week asking for feedback. They also rang from office and said you will let us know what you think.”

The provider sought feedback both formally and informally. We saw evidence of surveys being sent to people for feedback and robust responses to complaints. This meant people had the opportunity to share their views and people were involved in decisions about their care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We saw that people had access to services outside of what was provided by Lillie-Rose Home Care. We reviewed communications and care plan information which evidenced that people were supported to access emergency care as well as other support, care, and treatment, for example to see the district nurse.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Whilst the provider did not currently support anyone likely to experience inequalities in outcome or barriers to receiving care, this was considered and explored by the provider. This included an example outside the boundaries of someone’s immediate care where the provider had recognised a barrier to someone visiting a loved one

and facilitated this outside of the individuals care and support to support positive outcomes for the individual.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The leadership team understood the importance of supporting people with decisions about their future and were able to give examples of support they had provided people with at the end of their life. We saw details in care plans regarding people having advanced decision paperwork in place, for example a DNACPR. They understood the importance of supporting the person with respect and empathy and they extended this support to loved ones. The director said, ““We love them (clients) and still see some family members after people have passed away, we are a listening ear and someone they can call.”