Lumina Care Wigan & St Helens

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

Our rating is good. People received a service which was person centred and based upon their personal wishes and preferences in care. Aspects of care, including when people had made decisions about care at the end of their life, were clear for staff to follow and written in a sensitive manner. People knew how to complain and offer feedback about the service. People also knew who to approach to escalate concerns if they needed to.

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.

People told us they received care which was delivered around their needs and preferences by staff who knew them well. We were told, “[Staff] make me breakfast and egg and chips. They even put vinegar on it” and “I would recommend the service.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of person-centred care and how they applied this when providing care to people.

People were happy with the continuity of care provided. One person described how the provider was flexible when delivering care visits, which supported their ongoing hospital treatment.

Staff told us they knew people well and consistently supported the same people. This enabled staff to recognise changes in a person and seek appropriate advice or care.

We sought feedback from partners about their views of the provider to ensure care for people was joined up. We did not receive any information of concern with respect to this.

Care plans contained information about what was important to, and for people. Information about other agencies involved in a person’s care was also recorded.

People we spoke with knew where their care plans were stored, should they wish to refer to them. People also had the opportunity to review and share information through regular reviews.

Staff ensured confidential records about people were stored securely and were aware of who they could and couldn’t share information with. The manager told us information about the service was available in different formats if required.

People had access to information about the service, as well as information about their medical conditions, within their care file. This file was stored in their home.

People told us they knew how to raise a complaint about the service or share feedback. People knew who to complain to. One person told us, “I would ring them [the office staff] if I was unhappy.”

Staff knew the actions they would take in response to a complaint being raised to them.

There was a complaints policy and information regarding raising a complaint was shared with people through the service guide. Records were maintained of complaints and compliments about the service which had been received. Logs were maintained of all feedback, including how feedback had been addressed.

People told us they received care and support when they needed it, and staff considered their individual needs. One person told us they were unhappy with their current morning call time. We discussed this with a staff member who confirmed they were seeking to change this and were waiting for an available slot to become available. The person confirmed they were kept updated about when this may be possible.

Staff told us they had the time they needed to support people in a responsive manner and did not feel rushed.

We sought feedback from partners about whether people could access care when they needed it from the provider. We did not receive any information of concern with respect to this.

Records were maintained of all care visits. These demonstrated people received planned care on time and in line with their assessed needs.

People told us their care was coordinated, and they were asked about their views on the care they received. One person told us, “I gave staff top marks on my reviews.”

Staff described how the team actively sought feedback from people and families regarding their experience of the service through regular reviews of their care.

There were systems in place to support people to provide feedback about their care. For example, people could utilise the providers complaints process. Recorded reviews were also undertaken either face to face or via the telephone when people were routinely asked about their views of care.

People confirmed their views were sought. This included about planning for the future.

Staff were aware when people had expressed views about their future and where this information would be recorded.

Care plans recorded people wishes for the future. This included when people had expressed their preferences for care at the end of their life. When appropriate, do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders were in place and available for staff to reference should this be needed.