Coyle Homecare

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 received personalised care and support that met their individual needs and abilities. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and wishes. Information was accessible and people's views were listened to and acted on. Records were updated in a timely manner to ensure they reflected people’s changing needs. People’s equality and diversity needs were respected and met.

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’s needs were met in a personalised way. Relatives were involved in care planning and reviews of their care. Care staff understood people’s needs and how to meet them. Relatives said the service was responsive and understood people’s individual needs. A relative said, “We have an updated care plan that we are involved with and all the information required to contact the company in the event of any issues.”

Staff knew the people they were caring for and treated them as individuals. Staff were knowledgeable about what people liked and what their preferences were and how best to meet them. The registered manager explained that care was delivered to people in a person-centred way. The registered manager emphasised that people had different communication needs and they tailored communication methods to each individual as appropriate.

Relatives we spoke with were confident that management and staff regularly engaged with other health and social care providers.

Staff and management told us they engaged with other health providers and the local authority. This helped to provide coordinated care.

Records we reviewed showed the agency had a good working relationship with health care professionals. No concerns were raised with us during our assessment in relation to communication.

The provider's processes included liaising with other professionals and providing continuity of care.

Relatives told us they had the information they needed. They knew who the registered manager was, who to contact if needed and they were provided with information about people’s care and support. A relative told us, “We work very closely with the manager, who is very supportive and easy to talk to.” Another relative said, “We are aware of the company’s policy regarding any complaints.”

The registered manager also advised that they held regular meetings with relatives where they were able to review people’s care and provide necessary information.

People’s preferred communication methods were clearly recorded in their care plans. This information was personalised. Systems were in place to hold confidential information and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR). Service records were kept locked away or password protected on electronic devices. This helped to ensure people’s private and sensitive information was only shared with authorised persons.

Staff took the time to communicate with people and understood their needs. This was confirmed by relatives we spoke with. A relative told us, “They manage to communicate well with [my family member], despite [their] complexities and [they] respond well.” Another relative said, “Although [my family member] is non verbal and will make an occasional noise, they all communicate well as the carers understand various facial expressions and gestures that [my family member] make.”

Staff and the registered manager told us they communicated with people and spoke with relatives to obtain feedback. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and took appropriate action to help ensure people received effective care and support. Staff received support and training to help them enhance communication with people.

Each person had a communication care plan in place. This provided information about people’s individual needs and included information about how the person communicates and details of how to communicate with them. The information was clear and detailed and helped staff understand people.

People’s records showed there was regular and consistent input from health care professionals. Relatives told us staff could access health care support for people when needed.

Staff and the registered manager were able to describe how they supported people with reasonable adjustments, for example with the use of equipment.

Feedback from external care professionals was positive.

A system was in place to support people to access health care providers. Information was readily available to people, relatives and staff as required.

Relatives were complimentary about the agency. A relative said, “The company is well managed and easy to contact and communicate with. Their professionalism and transparency provide us with great confidence.” Another relative told us, “I have a very good relationship with the manager who is very helpful. I can’t say much more than the fact they are marvellous 10 +++++ is the rating I would give them.” Feedback indicated that communication between management, staff and relatives was positive. Management encouraged feedback from all parties and told relatives to openly raise issues if needed. People's equality needs were met. People's cultural and religious needs were met.

Staff were complimentary about working at the agency and said they felt valued by their colleagues and management. A member of staff told us, “It is a good place to work.” Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were aware of the importance of treating people equally regardless of their abilities, their background or their lifestyle. Staff asked people and relatives how they wanted to be supported. Relatives told us staff listened and valued people’s individuality and preferences.

Procedures regarding equality and diversity were in place. Staff had completed training to understand how to meet people's diverse needs. Where appropriate, care planning documents included information about people’s religious and cultural needs. Management carried out audits and checks which monitored the quality of the service provided. Management regularly sought feedback from relatives.

At the time of the assessment, the service did not provide end of life care to people.

The registered manager confirmed that at the time of the assessment no one was being supported with end of life care or in receipt of palliative care.

An end of life policy was in place.