Ardour Healthcare Services 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 – 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 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 and their relatives told us they were regularly involved in planning their care and treatment and felt it was centred around their needs. Their involvement began at the assessment and pre-admission stage ensuring input was given from the offset of provision.

Staff told us people's care plans gave them sufficient information about people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act to ensure people received support in a way they liked.

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 the support they received from staff was well co-ordinated with other services they received. Staff gave us examples of how they worked with other health and social care professionals in the best interest of people. This included working with GPs, social workers, occupational therapist and district nurses.
 

There were systems in place to support people in a way that was coordinated with other agencies. There was a clear process to ensure that all people were supported safely, and enhanced attention was provided to new people using the service. For example, when people had experienced a bout of infection, additional well-being checks were completed to check they received sufficient support.

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

People told us they could access information and advice from staff, provided in a way that they could understand. People had access to their own health records and care plans. They could decide which personal information they wanted to be shared with other people.

People told us staff communicated with them in the way they liked.
 

Leaders had good understanding of their responsibilities in line with the Accessible Information Standard, (this is a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can be understood).

People's communication needs were clearly recorded in their care plans. There was GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) policy in place to ensure confidentiality.

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 aware how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues. People and their relatives felt confident that if they complained, the concerns would be dealt with.

There was a complaint policy in place and people were given a copy of the policy to keep at home. Complaints were being logged and investigated in accordance with the provider's policy. There were processes to gather people's feedback through calls to people and surveys. Outcomes of the surveys were shared with people and staff, and actions were being taken to improve the service because of people's feedback, such as providing as much training through a face to face format as possible to improve learning.

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

The provider and staff understood the importance of all people being able to access services. Staff described how they followed legislation to ensure everyone had rights to allow care to be needs led and equality based. Staff were able to identify when people may have needed additional support from other agencies and supported them to access these, such as supporting an induvial with accessing the continence team to support them with their ongoing continence needs.

The provider supported staff to access any identified training that meant people using the service could have better experiences, outcomes and get the care, support and treatment when needed. For example, specific learning disability training, alongside Oliver McGowan training, to alleviate carer stress and ensuring effective person-centred care was provided.

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.

People felt they could share their views and understood their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights. None of the people and relatives we spoke to expressed any concerns about discrimination or inequality.

Leaders were aware of and complied with their legal requirements regarding equality and human rights. There was an equality and diversity policy in place to promote equality and reduce the risk of discrimination. There were processes in place to ensure that reasonable adjustments were made for people with different protected characteristics, for example disability.

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.

People and their relatives told us they were asked about wishes regarding their future as part of initial assessments and care plan reviews.

The provider had end of life care policy. People who were approaching end of life care had risk assessments in place. People's wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation were clearly recorded in the care plans. Decisions about DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) were recorded for everyone.

As the service also provided care to several younger people, care planning included aspirations for the future, smart goals and plans to support young people developing skills that would assist in them achieving their desired future. Such as education access, and access to the community to build confidence.