Real Social Care Solutions 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated

good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Whilst care plans were not person centred, people’s and relatives feedback was overwhelming positive and showed people did receive care from a staff team who knew them well. Staff were aware of peoples, routines, likes, wishes and preferences. One relative told us, “I did hear [family member] having a coughing episode this morning, but the staff were really calm and got him through it.” A person told us, “The morning call is 45 minutes, but they have stayed longer on a couple of occasions when something needed sorting before they left. They would never just leave it.” The registered manager took immediate action regarding care plans and told us they would review all care plans with people to ensure they were detailed and people were involved.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us a range of professionals were involved in their care and worked well together. They also said they were supported by a consistent staff team. When new staff started, they completed a period of shadowing with experienced staff. One person said, “If they have to send in a new carer, they get a week’s shadowing with another confident carer to learn the ropes.” This helped ensure continuity of care and that staff were competent to meet people’s needs

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us no one they were supporting currently required information in a tailored way, but they did have policy to follow if people did require information in an accessible way such as large font or easy read. This meant the provider had systems in place to ensure information could be made accessible if required.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback about their care, treatment and support. People were supported to raise complaints, understood how to do so, and these were managed in line with the provider’s policy. However, there were no effective systems to routinely gather feedback on what was working well or where improvements were needed. Care plans were not always reviewed, and people were not consistently involved in assessing their needs. The provider did not have an effective system in place to capture people’s views of the service.

The provider ensured people could access care, support and treatment when needed. Feedback from people and relatives confirmed care was provided without delay, and external professionals, such as GPs, were contacted when required. One person told us, “I went through a blip and felt really down. I think it was delayed shock over how my life had changed and I spoke with the carers who spotted it and then the district nurse got involved and I was diagnosed with [health condition]. .” This meant people received timely care and support, and risks to their health and wellbeing were appropriately managed.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people at risk of inequality in outcomes and tailored care, support and treatment accordingly

Whilst people were commissioned a certain amount of care time, all the people we spoke with told us care staff always stayed longer if they required more support or in an emergency. One person told us, “There is lots to do each time (call) so they usually stay the time and sometimes might even go over if I am having trouble with [incontinence].” This meant people received flexible and responsive care tailored to their needs, and staff were willing to stay longer to ensure people’s immediate health and wellbeing needs were met.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including end of life care, to enable informed decisions about their future. Care plans did not consistently record people’s wishes, preferences or decisions regarding end of life care, including whether advance decisions such as RESPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms or DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation)

were in place. One relative said, “We do have a DNACPR form in place, but I don’t remember ever being asked for a copy by Real Solution Care.” This meant people’s end of life preferences were not always clearly documented or shared to ensure their wishes would be respected.