Aamevol Home Care Ltd

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.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery.

People’s care plans were not always personalised to give details about how to support people in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. There was no evidence processed were in place or staff had the training to support people with communication needs other than verbal communication. There was limited evidence people, relatives and staff were asked to feed back about their care and support. There was limited evidence people had been asked what they wanted to achieve whilst being supported by the service. People were supported by a consistent support team and staff responded to their requests to have their care visit times changed.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always receiving person centred care. People’s care plans were not always personalised and lacked detail about people’s specific likes, dislikes and preferences. People’s individual support needs, such as living with dementia or physical needs were noted in their care plans, however guidance about how to support them with these was not always detailed. Outcomes that people wanted to achieve from staff support were generic and not person centred. For example, all the care plans we reviewed had an outcome for people recorded that they wanted to ‘get help with personal care’. Staff told us they read peoples care plans but were unable to tell us how they supported people in line with their individual needs.

Despite our findings people and relatives told us staff treated them well and in line with how they wanted to be supported. One relative said, ‘‘[Staff] talk and interact with [family member] all the time and they are very comfortable being supported by them.’’ Staff spoke about people kindly and told us an important part of their job as how they treated people.

People and relatives told us they had support from a consistent group of staff and rotas confirmed this was the case. One relative said, ‘‘We have the same bunch [of staff] who have been coming a little while now which is nice as it means [family member] can build some relationships with them.’’ People and relatives were positive about their experiences of being integrated into the service and being supported to get to know the staff and management team. Staff changed their working patterns and care visits at people’s requests. They gave examples where they had stayed with people longer if they requested more support or were waiting for a health professional to call or visit them in their house.

The service did not ensure they supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was no evidence processes were in place to provide information to people who may have different communication needs such as needing accessible documents or not being able to communicate verbally. Staff were not trained to support people with communication needs that were not verbal. They were unable to explain to us how they would support people, for example by using signs or pictures. The management team told us information was cascaded to staff in 1 to 1 and group meetings. However, there were no records of these discussions or what information was being provided. We could not be assured information was being provided to staff in an effective manner.

There was limited evidence to show how people and relatives were being involved in discussions about their care and support. Each person’s care file showed they had one phone call to ask them how their felt the support from staff was like. Other than this, there was no evidence people were involved in discussions. There was no evidence people and relatives had been asked for feedback about care plans and risk assessments. Staff meetings and supervisions were either not happening or were not being recorded to show how staff were being listened to and involved at the service.

Staff told us the management team would talk with them when something happened that they needed updating about. People and relatives told us staff listened to them on a day-to-day basis whilst supporting them. One relative said, ‘‘If [family member] wants a change to happen then staff listen to them and make the change. I would say they are involved in how staff support them.’’ Another relative said, ‘‘We hear from the management team sometimes about what is going on at the service- like if there are new staff starting.’’

People and relatives told us they were confident staff would contact health services if they or their family member showed signs they needed this support. Staff explained how they would contact the emergency services if a person needed help quickly. One relative said, ‘‘[Staff] have stayed with [family member] before to make sure they were OK until the emergency services got here.’’ People and relatives were positive about how they had been supported to start using the service.

People had some generic outcomes recorded in their care plans for example in relation to being ‘supported to be comfortable’ or to be ‘supported with personal care.’ However, there was no evidence more specific outcomes were being discussed with people or their relatives. Care plans and daily records were not being reviewed regularly or effectively making it more difficult to monitor people’s outcomes and see if they were having good experiences. Staff did not know what outcomes people might want to achieve or how they would support them with these.

People and relatives told us staff supported them how they wanted to be supported and were generally positive about their experiences at the service. One relative explained how staff supported their family member to follow their interests in the community on a daily basis. They said, ‘‘[Staff] support [family member] out and about and give them a lot of motivation and stimulation. They are out and about all the time and this mean a lot both to them and to me as I know they are having the best time they can.’’

We did not see any evidence that the future had been discussed with people using the service. There were no plans in place for people to be supported at the end of their lives or if their needs changed. The management team told us this had not been discussed with people yet. They and the staff team told us they would support people with any future wishes they may have and would ask for support from other professionals if this was needed. One relative said, ‘‘I have no concerns and can see us staying with the service for a long time.’’