Lotus Home Care Hull

People received care from staff who knew them well and who were committed to promoting their wellbeing and dignity. Staff spent time with people to understand their health concerns, providing a flexible approach to care when needed. One staff member told us, “We don’t do it for the money, we do it for the person.”

The provider had systems in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities, risks were assessed, and there were clear arrangements for reporting and learning from accidents, incidents and complaints. Recruitment processes ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people, and staff received regular training, supervision and spot checks to support safe care delivery. The service worked effectively with healthcare professionals and other agencies to help people achieve positive outcomes and maintain their independence at home.

People and relatives described the service as flexible and responsive. Care packages were developed with people and their families and reviewed regularly. People told us staff adjusted support around their appointments and changing circumstances and worked with them to achieve the outcomes that mattered to them. Staff understood the importance of promoting choice, control and independence, and people consistently told us they were involved in decisions about their care.

The service benefited from strong leadership. Staff spoke positively about the support they received and described the registered manager as approachable,knowledgeable and responsive. One staff member said, “[The registered manager] is brilliant, if you don’t do what you are meant to do, they will pick it up.”

Systems were in place to gather feedback, monitor performance and drive improvement. The provider demonstrated a commitment to learning and development and invested in staff wellbeing initiatives to support the workforce.

However, we identified some areas where records and governance arrangements required further strengthening. Some care plans and risk assessments contained generic or inaccurate information and did not always reflect people’s individual circumstances. We also found improvements were needed to medicine recording. Although these issues had not negatively impacted people’s care and records showed people received their medicines as prescribed, existing auditing systems had not consistently identified these concerns. The registered manager was receptive to feedback throughout the assessment and had already begun considering improvements to strengthen oversight, care planning and record keeping.

Overall, people received good-quality, person-centred care from a service with a positive culture and committed leadership. The provider worked collaboratively with people, relatives and professionals to deliver care that promoted safety, independence and wellbeing. While further development of auditing processes was needed, these concerns did not have a significant impact on people's experiences or outcomes.