Master 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

The service was responsive. People received individualised care, at a time they chose, that met their needs. They received information at the start of the service, and on an ongoing basis, in formats that were accessible to them. Feedback was sought and acted upon and complaints were taken seriously, investigated, responded to, and used to improve the service. People were made aware of their right to advocates and were included in decisions about their care and support. The service specialised in providing care to people approaching the end of their life and this was delivered with care and compassion and in collaboration with other professionals.

This service scored 0 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received person-centred care that met their needs and placed them at the centre of the service they received. They remained in control of the care and support delivered to them. People consistently told us they were happy with the quality of care they received. One relative told us, ‘I am very happy with the care my [family member] receives and I would recommend the agency wholeheartedly. Staff laugh with [family member] and get on well; they have become friends.’ Another relative said, ‘As far as I can see [family member] is looked after well. We have no complaints at all. Staff seem to be trained well and they fit in with the family.’ Staff agreed they had the time, training, encouragement, and support to deliver care that was person-centred, patient, and appropriate; they gave us many examples of this. Where people required additional time, staff told us this was reported to the registered manager who arranged for the person to have more time.

People told us the service knew their needs, preferences, and routines well and we saw these had been recorded, including in relation to their health, leisure, and cultural needs. People told us these needs were met in a person-centred manner and that staff supported their choices and assisted them in whatever way they needed including in relation to social and emotional wellbeing. One relative told us, ‘[Family member] is very confused and has mood swings which is all part of their condition. Staff play games with [family member] and they sing songs together. They do get [family member] out of their moods when they happen.’ Staff demonstrated that they knew people’s needs well and supported them to remain independent and make their own choices; staff explained to us how they encouraged this. The service worked with professionals to ensure people received continuity of care, support and treatment and we saw examples of this. Health professionals reported people received consistently good quality, person-centred care. We saw from care plans that people’s needs had been holistically assessed, including information on their health and wellbeing needs, and that this not only enabled staff to support them but share information with other professionals, as required, to aid continuity of care, support, and treatment.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the accessible information standard which applies to people who use a service and have information or communication needs because of a disability, impairment, or sensory loss. We saw that this standard was met. People told us the service was good at communicating with them and in a way that met their needs. One relative told us there had never been a problem with communicating with the service whilst two additional relatives described communication as, ‘good’. Relatives told us how effectively the service communicated with other professionals to ensure consistent care was delivered. Staff agreed they had access to all the information they needed to provide safe and effective care and support, particularly in relation to training. One staff member told us, ‘I feel confident that I have received the necessary training and support to care for people safely. The training has been comprehensive and relevant. The impact of the training has been significant, enabling me to provide high-quality, person-centred support that meets the needs of the individuals in my care.’ We saw that there was a good level of information available to people who used the service, their relatives and staff. For example, a detailed Service User Guide was in place that provided people with information on the service, what to expect, and how to complain. Staff had received training in communication and information was available in alternative formats for people who required it.

People had regular opportunities to provide feedback on the service and in varied formats. Where feedback was received, this was analysed and action plans developed when shortfalls were identified. Complaints were taken seriously, investigated, responded to, and used to improve the service. People told us they had opportunities to give feedback on the care they received and that they felt listened to. They told us the service gave them questionnaires to complete and they had regular formal reviews with the service; they told us communication was good. We saw from recent questionnaires and minutes from care review meetings that people were happy with the service they received. Staff told us they felt listened to and supported. They told us supervisions were beneficial and helped with their professional development. Regular staff meetings were held and these were an open forum for discussion. Staff told us they were able to contribute ideas and provide feedback. One staff member said, ‘I find appraisals and support sessions extremely beneficial for my development. The feedback I receive during these sessions is always supportive and aimed at helping me become better in my role. It is specific, actionable, and encourages me to reflect on my practices and make necessary adjustments.’ The service completed regular reviews with people and gave them opportunities to provide feedback and suggestions. Where shortfalls were identified, actions plans were put in place to address these. A complaints policy and procedure were in place and these were appropriate. We saw an example of where the service had responded to a complaint and we identified that appropriate action had been taken to investigate and respond to the concerns and seek advice from other professionals as required. Complaints and concerns were logged to help identify any themes or trends.

The service was flexible and accommodating in meeting people’s needs including in crisis situations. People could access the care they needed when they needed it. People told us the service had been quick and efficient at arranging their care, and that they had liaised with other professionals to ensure it was consistent and appropriate. One relative told us how care had been agreed during the day and care arranged for the same night; the relative described the arrangements as, ‘very efficient’. People told us there were few late calls and no missed calls. Where staff were running late, people told us they were kept updated and one person told us another staff member turned up very quickly to replace the one running late. Staff told us they were given enough time to travel between calls and they raised no concerns in relation to people receiving care on time. They told us if a care call ran over, then the office was made aware who managed this appropriately. Staff told us the registered manager was responsive if they raised concerns about not having enough time to meet people’s needs. One staff member said, ‘If additional time is needed, I promptly inform the office to adjust the schedule as needed. This ensures that care remains consistent, and reliable, preventing any delays or missed calls whilst maintaining a high level of satisfaction for those I support.’ Call time data showed people received the care they needed at their agreed time in a high percentage of cases. Processes were in place to manage this including monitoring call times and investigating when they failed to happen at the agreed time. The service used an electronic system for staff to record their call times and this was used appropriately. We saw in cases were staff failed to record their call times, this was due to a poor network signal.

The service was available to people who are most likely to experience inequality in outcomes such as those people living with dementia, a mental health disorder or a learning disability, for example. The service also provided care and support to people reaching the end of their lives and, at the time of this assessment, most people were receiving this type of care. The service had been successful at tailoring the care to meet the needs of people at the end of their lives; people told us this. Staff told us they were supported to provide person-centred care to the people who used the service. They told us the service considered what people needed in relation to their needs and provided them with enough time to deliver this. One staff member said, ‘I believe that people using the service are well cared for and safe due to the comprehensive care plans, well trained staff, regular monitoring, open communication, and robust safeguarding procedures. These factors collectively ensure that high standards of care and safety are maintained, providing clients with the support and protection they need.’ The service demonstrated they actively listened to people who used the service, and their relatives, and provided care to meet their individual needs. People were included in decisions about the service they received and records demonstrated this.

The service specialised in meeting the needs of people who were reaching the end of their life and our findings confirmed people received thoughtful, caring, and appropriate care at this difficult time. The relatives of those people currently receiving end of life or palliative care and those whose family members had sadly passed away but had received care, told us the care they received was of a consistently good quality. One relative of a person who had sadly passed away said, ‘Our carer was exemplary. They worked to a very high standard in every respect. The kindness, care, compassion and support they showed for our entire family was priceless. They went above and beyond our expectations. We could not have managed this devastating time without them.’ Another relative told us, ‘My experience with the home care service has been truly exceptional. The caregivers demonstrated unwavering professionalism and genuine compassion in looking after my [family member]. Their attention to detail, from medication management to daily activities, was impressive. They went above and beyond to create a comfortable and supportive environment, especially during challenging times. Communication was clear, and they kept us informed about my [family member’s] wellbeing. I am deeply grateful for the outstanding care provided, making a significant positive impact on my [family member’s] quality of life.’ Staff demonstrated thoughtfulness and insight in how they spoke about the people they supported. They understood people’s needs, and those of their relatives, and delivered care that was kind and compassionate. They told us the training and support they received helped them to achieve this. The health professionals who worked closely and regularly with the service agreed that the care provided was of a consistently high standard. People had end of life care plans in place that gave staff information on the care and support the person required.