Our editorial policy

Families often come to this site at a hard moment: understanding a diagnosis, working out costs, or deciding what happens after a hospital discharge. What we publish needs to be accurate and current, because the decisions people make from it matter.

This page explains how we produce content, who reviews it, where our information comes from, and what to do if something looks wrong.

Who writes our content?

Our writers have backgrounds in health and care journalism. They work from briefs built on current NHS, NICE and CQC guidance, not opinion. We check every clinical claim against a source, and every article gets reviewed before it goes live.

A named byline means that person wrote or substantially edited the piece. Unsigned articles come from our editorial team as a whole.

How we fact-check

We check every clinical or factual claim against a written source before we publish. We rank sources by reliability: government and regulatory bodies first (NHS, NICE, CQC), major UK health charities next (Alzheimer’s Society, Dementia UK, Age UK, Marie Curie, Parkinson’s UK), then peer-reviewed research. We use general health publishers only when nothing higher up this list covers the point, and we don’t use competitor content, anonymous sites, or AI-generated summaries.

We check statistics and guidance for currency at publication, and again at every scheduled review.

How clinical articles are reviewed

Articles on specific conditions, like dementia, Parkinson’s, or complex and end-of-life care, go through clinical review before they are published. Dr Jamie Wilson, our founder and a clinician by background, reviews condition-specific clinical detail. Grace Silvester, our Head of Quality Assurance and Governance, oversees the wider process behind how we apply clinical accuracy and quality standards. 

This sits on top of source-checking, not instead of it. A clinically reviewed article has been checked twice: once against the evidence, once by someone with clinical training.

Sources we use

We draw on government and regulatory publications, established UK health charities, and peer-reviewed research, in that order. Where we cite a statistic or guideline, we link to the source in the article itself. Ask our editorial team for our full source list.

How we handle corrections

Spotted something wrong or out of date? Tell us using the contact details below. We review every report and correct genuine errors quickly, noting the update date at the top of the article. 

Conflict of interest

Hometouch is a live-in care provider, and this site helps people find care with us. We won’t pretend otherwise. Our interest is in being useful and honest enough that families trust us, not in overstating what live-in care offers or leaving out information that points elsewhere. Where residential care, another provider, or a different funding route genuinely fits someone’s situation better, our content says so.

Editorial and clinical review happen independently of sales and marketing. No one outside those teams signs off on what an article says.

Update cadence

We review clinically sensitive content, including all condition-specific articles, at least once a year, sooner if guidance changes. We check cost and funding information more often, since those figures move fastest. Every article shows a last-updated date.

Last updated

This policy was last reviewed on the 13th August 2026, and is reviewed at least annually.

Contact

Questions about our content, a correction to report, or want to know how an article was reviewed? Contact our team at hello@myhometouch.com