Ornate Health Care Derby

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

This is the first assessment for this newly 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment. Care plans did not always provide information on how people would be consistently supported. Care plans did not detail the actual support people required with the administration of medication.

Leaders told us that the providers ethos and values were to provide compassionate and person-centred care. Staff knew what person-centred care was, a staff member told us, “I always put the individual at the centre of the care I provide.” Care plans we looked at had been kept under review.

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.

Leaders told us they worked together with professionals across health and social care to provide coordinated and quality care for the people they supported. For example, leaders told us about a housing maintenance issue one person had which they had escalated to the local housing team. A staff member stated, “I have called out the district nurse and communicated with the pharmacist about a person’s medication.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. One person told us they did not have a copy of their care plan. We discussed this with leaders who explained that they had identified some people may experience difficulty accessing the electronic version of their care plan and would be providing printed copies within people’s home to ensure accessibility.

Leaders told us if required they would be able to arrange information to be made available in different languages for people using the service. People’s communication needs were recorded in their care records.

People told us that staff were caring in their approach. However, one person said they sometimes experienced a language barrier because English was not the first language of the staff who supported them. We discussed this with leaders, who explained that all staff are required to demonstrate effective English communication skills before being recruited. They acknowledged that accents may occasionally affect communication and told us they continued to support staff to communicate clearly with people using the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Feedback was received from people and relatives on the quality of the care and service provided, which was summarized using a ‘You said, we did’ framework. Where improvements had been identified, actions had taken place. For example, there were concerns around medication communication and monthly medication audits were introduced to address this.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and had oversight of any complaints ensuring they were investigated with actions taken as required to improve outcomes. People knew how to raise concerns and felt they would be listened to. A person told us, “I would speak with the office manager if I needed to.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access healthcare professionals, including their GP, and emergency healthcare services when required. One person told us, “Staff take me to all my appointments” and another person stated, “They [carers] all help me to get to appointments when I need to go.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider ensured people they supported were treated fairly and not discriminated against. Leaders and staff understood how to recognize discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage individuals. There were policies to promote equality and diversity to ensure people did not experience discrimination or inequality in how they were supported. A staff member said, “I provide support that is respectful, inclusive, and person-centred.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of the inspection no one at the service was receiving end of life care. Leaders told us they would work with external professionals, ensuring staff had access to specialist advice and support to ensure people’s needs were met when they were receiving end of life care. Training records showed that majority of staff had undertaken ‘End of Life’ training. A staff member said, “Good end-of-life care focuses on ensuring a person is comfortable, respected, and supported in line with their wishes during the final stage of life.”