Qualitcare24-7 Ltd Portsmouth

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 75 (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.

People we spoke to told us they were involved in their care and treatment choices. For example, 1 person lived with a medical condition which could require immediate response from care staff. The person’s relative told us, “Staff know what they’re doing, they’ve been spot on when I’ve been there.” Staff we spoke to were knowledgeable about this person’s needs and how to respond when required.

Systems and processes were in place to communicate any changes to people’s needs to staff. These included regular staff meetings, communicating directly with staff on duty and sharing the information with the person’s team via their team leader, which staff we spoke to confirmed. In addition, systems were in place to obtain feedback from people around the care they received. The provider told us, “We ensure our clients feel that staff care and that the care they are receiving, they have participated, they are happy.” We saw evidence feedback from people was regularly sought and acted upon, with actions being taken where appropriate, which was also confirmed by external professionals’ feedback.

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 demonstrated they understood individuals support needs and were knowledgeable about upcoming appointments in the community and had assessed and planned for any reasonable adjustments required to ensure flexibility and choice for the person. For example, 1 person experienced distress when attending a specific appointment in the community. Leaders had a plan in place for a future appointment to be undertaken at the person’s home, by a familiar staff member and would be supported by a member of their staff team whom they had agreed. This also supported the person to be involved and have choice in their support team. In addition, people had a summary care record containing person centred information about them, which they had available and would be able to share this information with professionals in the community if required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed during the initial assessment process, with information recorded about how staff should communicate with them. This included information on any equipment used to improve communication, PECS and Makaton for example.

Leaders told us people, and their families were provided with written information about the service and how to complain should the need arise, which would be provided in different formats if required.

Policies were in place for Accessible Information Standards (AIS) and a communication policy which staff confirmed they had access to. In addition, processes were in place to ensure the person was involved in what information to share and who with.

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.

People were able to raise complaints if they arose, which were then investigated, and an outcome would be shared with the person and their family if appropriate. Staff were available in the home for people to speak to if they had a concern and staff confirmed they were aware of how to escalate any complaints if needed. One person’s relative told us they had previously raised a complaint and been happy with the response and outcome, another person told us they would feel able to raise a complaint if needed.

Systems and processes were in place to receive, investigate and communicate outcomes of any complaints received. The provider had a policy in place for managing complaints and staff confirmed they had access to this.We also saw evidence of compliments received by the provider who demonstrated this was shared with staff appropriately.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People told us they had access to specialist healthcare appointments when needed and people confirmed they were supported to maintain healthy relationships with their families.

People were supported by staff to access care and support. For example, 1 person who lived with a learning disability, was supported by staff to attend college but could experience emotional distress while out of the home A plan had been developed with the person and relevant people involved, which effectively identified potential triggers and detailed management strategies for staff to follow, which they confirmed they had access to and were reviewed regularly. This meant the person was supported to safely access care and support by staff who had the necessary information and knew the person well.

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.

Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and help reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. People had up to date support plans in place which were reviewed regularly with the person to ensure they reflected the person’s needs and their plan had been tailored around their individual needs. For example, 1 person had a fear of blood tests, a plan had been developed to ensure this person was able to have a blood test to monitor their health but, in an environment, suitable for them which would improve health outcomes.

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.

The provider could provide end of life care where this became appropriate. There were no service users receiving end of life care at the time of inspection. However leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the processes in place including which professionals to seek support from and when, how people and their families would be involved in the process, documentation and specialist staff support. Effective policies were also in place which staff had access to along with management support and people were asked about end of life plans at a time appropriate for them.