Elsie's Help at Home Limited

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 and relatives were involved in the planning of their care and confirmed this was delivered in the way they had requested. Staff knew people well and were able to develop positive relationships with the people they supported. People were supported to access the community if this had been agreed as part of their care package. The service worked with other professionals who were involved in people’s care to ensure all staff were following any guidance put into place.

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 were happy with the service they received and the way it was delivered. 1 person told us, “[Staff member] comes quite often. They do more without being asked, they are lovely.” Another person said, “A big selection of carers. I am full of admiration for them. [Registered manager] cuts their teeth on me with new carers. They work as a team. I can ring the office at any time.”

Staff understood what person-centred care meant and told us they had enough time to get to know people well. A staff member told us, “We have [person] who was a head teacher, they like their routine completed in the order they want it, and this is fine we are happy to do this.” Another staff member said, “I ask people how I can help and if there is anything I can help with. I always ask if they want extra care. Some people just want us to sit and chat. I try to only do what people want me to do.”

People and relatives were happy with the continuity of care. A relative told us, “We have a group of 5 carers for 2 visits a day. I thought it would be really helpful to have photos of the carers to help [family member] understand who was visiting.” We shared this feedback with the registered manager.

The registered manager told us they tried to meet people’s needs where possible and gave us an example of a person whose first language was not English having a staff member as part of their team who could speak the same language.

The service worked with partner agencies where necessary. The registered manager told us they shared any information required when people were moving to different care providers.

The service ensured they delivered the care in an organised and structured way once the care package was agreed during the assessment process.

People and relatives confirmed they had been provided with the information they needed prior to care being delivered.

Staff told us most of the people they visited could verbally communicate. However, they were able to give examples of different communication methods if they needed to use these. A staff member said, “There is not anyone who requires different communication needs. In a previous job I had a [person] with a stroke, they would point or use gestures for certain things which we got to understand.” Another staff member said, “1 person with dementia may answer yes to most things but we have to check as they can get yes and no’s mixed up.”

People’s communication needs and how staff should support them were recorded as part of their care plan. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. The registered manager was aware of the accessible information standards and told us if anyone needed their information in a different format, they would find a way to make this happen.

People and relatives told us they were able discuss any concerns and complaints and were listened to. A person told us, “The [registered manager] does listen.” A relative said, “[Registered manager] would take notice of what I had to say.” Another relative added, “I would go directly to the managers and yes they listen.”

Staff told us they would listen to what people said and report any concerns to the office. A staff member told us, “If clients are unhappy, we encourage them to speak up or we can do it.” Another staff member said, “As far as I know people are happy, I do not hear of any complaints but if I heard a complaint I would tell the office.”

A complaints policy was in place and the registered manager responded to any concerns received. Whilst the registered manager had not sent people, relatives and staff formal surveys about their experiences, they had sent people and relatives links to an online feedback website. The results of these were extremely positive and resulted in the service being ranked in the top 20 homecare providers in the east of England. Comments included, “The manager and her team are a delight. They bring reliability, compassion and humour, along with efficiency and understanding of the challenges we face to a difficult situation”, "Outstanding care and professionalism on every level” and, “A very caring, reliable and trustworthy team. Very thorough with standards and great feedback on care updates. Your family are in safe hands and in this very daunting world of care, it was made very easy to understand.”

People and relatives told us other professionals were involved in people’s care when required. Most people told us their relatives supported them to access other services if needed. However, they felt the service would support them if required.

The registered manager told us, “Our process is we would support people to access any services, or I would go to the family to encourage them to go to their GP for a referral. 1 person had a few falls prior to starting with us so we referred to rapid response and they supported them.”

We had not received any negative feedback from partner agencies during the planning of this assessment.

The management team was proactive when recognising changes and deterioration in people’s health and would contact relatives or refer people directly if their needs changed.

People told us staff were consistent in speaking and treating them with respect and understood their needs.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training. The registered manager told us they were very involved in each package of care and spoke with people and relatives regularly, which meant they would recognise any equality concerns quickly.

The service was committed to ensuring people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

Whilst no-one at the end of their life was currently being supported by the service, their documents in relation to Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders were clearly recorded.

The registered manager told us they had supported people previously at the end of their life and worked alongside a local hospice team to maintain continuity. Staff had completed training on end of life care.

Care plans did contain some information relevant to people approaching the end of their lives. However, this information may need revisiting as information was quite brief.