ResCare

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 service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 ensured that people were at the centre of their care and choices. Partnership working with people and their relatives was not always effective in ensuring care needs were reviewed regularly and documented, which did not consistently support staff to response to people’s changing needs.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and a clear commitment to providing person-centred care. However, as outlined elsewhere in this report, people’s care needs were not always reviewed prior to each respite stay, care plans were not consistently updated, and emergency grab sheets were not always maintained. We found no evidence that these issues resulted in risk to people. The provider took prompt action to address these shortfalls by reviewing care needs, updating care plans, and ensuring clear guidance was in place to support people appropriately while promoting independence wherever possible.

People’s choices relating to their routines, activities and goals were documented. Staff spoke confidently about what was important to individuals and gave examples of how they adapted their support to help people achieve their goals, such as supporting a person to complete their own laundry. Care records reviewed showed staff provided personalised care aligned to people’s wishes and preferences.

Relatives spoke positively about the consistent approach to care and the support their family member received. They told us their family members felt safe and benefited from a women-only service, supported by female staff and management throughout.

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs and ensured continuity of care. People benefited from a reliable which helped them feel comfortable and supported. Staff worked collaboratively to meet people’s support needs. Care records showed that people accessed local facilities and attended community groups and clubs.

The provider had recently established links with the local authority; however, contact with healthcare professionals such as GP's and specialist nurses was limited, despite people being under their care. Staff told us they would support people to attend health appointments where required.

The provider explained that, because the service was currently used for short-term respite stays, communication with external professionals was undertaken in agreement with the person and their relative with appropriate legal authority, to support smooth transitions between services. The provider assured us that systems were in place to share information and make referrals appropriately where people used the service on a longer-term basis. This demonstrated a willingness to engage with external agencies to promote continuity of care and respond appropriately to people’s needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw information available within the service including signage was not in accessible formats. This was raised with the provider, and fire exit signage were displayed promptly.

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standards and showed us an easy read care plan, supported with pictures and images, being developed for a person. They assured us staff had access to picture cards, and they recognised and responded to people’s individual ways of communicating and expressing choices. The provider assured information was being developed into formats people could understand such as menus and the complaints procedure.

People’s communication needs were identified and supported. Communication care plans included prompts to guide staff on how individual communicated and helped staff recognise body language and facial expressions and respond in a way that people could understand and respond to. Staff understood how to communicate with people including recognising body language and gestures. One staff member said, “[Person name] will point at what they want or use hand gesture to communicate that they need.”

Relatives told us the provider and staff provided individual support and responded to their family member’s needs appropriately and felt involved and informed. They were confident their family member’s information was managed safely.

The provider did not always make 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 from a person and relatives and records viewed showed people were involved in the initial assessment and care planning process. Opportunities were missed to gather feedback, through surveys. Also, whilst review meetings were not always recorded to reflect people’s views and choices about the support they received a relative told us they had regular conversations with the provider and staff. The provider assured us record keeping would be strengthened.

The provider told us they routinely consulted with people and their relative to ensure care plan reflected their current needs and support required. They described checking for any changes in people’s needs, routines and if the supported needed to be adapted, however, this was not always documented. This was discussed with the provider, and they acknowledged strengthening record keeping will to ensure robust and accurately reflect people’s current needs, wishes and preferences.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place. Although the service had not received any complaints, a relative told us any concerns were discussed and addressed promptly. Relatives and a person told us they were confident to speak with the provider if they had any concerns.

The provider did not always make sure people could access all areas of the service. They made sure people received care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We identified there was a barrier within the service which meant people were not able to use the kitchen freely. There was no evidence this was discussed with people who were affected, which meant this restriction had not been properly assessed. The provider to prompt action when we alerted them and made sure the kitchen was accessible and potential risks to people were reduced. All areas of the service including the garden was accessible to people.

People received care in line with their assessed needs, when they first started to use the service and staff ensured that support was delivered reliably and as planned. Relatives told us staff had support their family member to access health care support when needed. Care records confirmed when people needed support to access health services during their respite stay, staff liaised with relatives to ensure the support was coordinated and timely. A relative was confident the provider and staff would contact them, if their family member required emergency medical treatment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored care accordingly. The provider and staff had completed equality, diversity and human rights training to support inclusive practice.

During the assessment, we did not identify any concerns or inconsistencies in people’s experiences of the service. There was no evidence that anyone was treated less favourably, or that outcomes differed as a result of personal characteristics, background or support needs.

Relatives told us they were confident their family member was well supported, and staff demonstrated an inclusive, person-centred approach in their day-to-day practice. People’s care plans reflected their individual needs and lifestyle choices. Care records showed people received consistent and respectful care aligned with their needs and preferences, supporting positive outcomes regardless of individual circumstances.

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 this inspection visit no one was receiving end of life care. Relatives told us and care records showed they had been offered the opportunity to discuss their family member’s end-of-life wishes.

The provider and staff had completed online training in end-of-life care. Procedures were in place to ensure staff worked with people, their relative and relevant health professionals to ensure people and their relatives were supported in a compassionate way.