Vestra Homecare Sunderland

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

This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff understood people’s needs well and knew when to seek further advice and support. They advocated well for people. We received consistently positive feedback from external partners regarding how well individual staff, and the service generally, worked flexibly and proactively. People and relatives were listened to and their views were instrumental to how the service was run. Their opinions were sought through a range of means. The provider had policies and processes in place to support significant changes in people’s lives, including at the end of their life.

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 and relatives found care was personalised to their individual needs and could be changed when needed. Care packages were regularly reviewed to ensure they were the best option for people. One relative said, “Very good in that regard. The introduction of the medication change, I simply had to speak to the manager. Once it was agreed with the head office, it was passed to the carers as part of the care plan.” Another said, “It’s all in the folder and the app, we are kept involved if anything needs to be changed.” Another person said, “They put everything in place for you, they adapt their rota to suit.” This was a common area of feedback, that the rota planning was geared up to meet people’s needs in the first place, and not the service’s preferences. The provider managed this balance well by having specific geographical zones covered by teams. This worked well for people and staff. People were helped to understand their condition and supported to challenge potential limitations.

People received consistent care from staff who understood their needs well. There was evident mutual understanding and respect between staff, people who used the service and relatives. These positive relationships made for effective sharing of information and reviewing of people’s needs, when required. One relative said, “We’ve been involved all the way, the social worker is too – they keep us all in the loop.” Staff received the right training and support to ensure they valued person-centred care. Leaders ensured care was joined-up and had the flexibility to help people move between services when they needed to. Staff ensured daily documentation was detailed and up to date, should it need to be relied upon by other professionals, and also so families had a clear picture. One external professional said, “Because of consistency in carers, staff became more familiar with the person’s style of communicating which, due to a speech impairment, would require time and familiarity to understand. This ability for reciprocal understanding was increased and communication with care staff was maximised.”

People and families valued the attention to detail shown by staff. Those that looked at information on the provider’s electronic records system fed back that the information was always up to date and accessible. People’s care planning had regard to their communicative styles and needs; staff knew about and acted on these. Care staff were well supported by an office team. Information was shared efficiently between then, and with people who used the service. Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The provider had made sure documentation could be produced in other formats where required.

People and relatives described wholly positive experiences when dealing with the service. They described office staff as approachable and helpful, and visiting care staff as patient and listening. Complaints were few and had been dealt with effectively. The registered manager understood the need to involve people if they had queries, and met with people if they had a misunderstanding, or issues which could be resolved quickly, to avoid this turning into a complaint. One relative said, “I haven’t had any complaint, but I know who to contact and I know it would be put right. The complaints policy is at [person’s] house, everything is at their house so they (and I) know what is going on.” Staff made sure people always had the opportunity to share their views about care. There were regular telephone calls to people and annual surveys, the results of which were unanimously positive. The registered manager was responsive to feedback about involving people even more in the running of the service (for instance, through recruitment). They had already done some of this inclusion work, for instance documenting a recent in-person event and using photos for the provider’s website.

People were supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs, in a way that worked for them. Staff ensured people had access to the right health and social care services. Care planning was sufficiently detailed to keep people safe.

People experienced a person-centred approach from the service, which ensured equity of experiences. The registered manager ensured staff understood people’s needs, preferences and anxieties. They put the right processes in place to support people.

No one was receiving end of life care, but staff were able to have sensitive conversations with people about their changing needs. Care planning and links with local clinicians meant the service could support people to stay in their homes as long as they were able.