Medistaff24

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment, working in partnership with them to decide how to respond to any changes in their needs.

The registered manager told us they always “Listen to the voice of the person and their wishes.” Care plans were comprehensive and contained the information staff needed to provide safe and appropriate support. They included details about people’s life history, routines, preferences and what was important to them day to day.

People and their relatives told us they valued receiving care from a small, consistent team of staff who knew them well and understood their routines. People experienced care that was tailored to their needs and delivered by familiar staff who offered compassionate, person-centred support.

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

The registered manager told us they aimed to deliver consistent care with familiar staff who could seamlessly provide safe, person-centred support. Staff were allocated to people and introduced to them before beginning care to help ensure smooth and reassuring transitions.

The service sought advice from other professionals, and the registered manager ensured people had timely access to appropriate services. For example, they worked closely with neighbourhood teams following a mobility assessment to ensure a person was referred for equipment to help keep them safe and promote independence.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs.

An Accessible Information Standard policy was in place, and the registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of how information should be adapted when people had specific communication or accessibility requirements.

Peoples care plans contained clear information about their communication needs, enabling staff to share information in ways people could understood and respond to.

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

No complaints had been logged in the last 12 months, a complaints procedure was however in place and shared with people when they began receiving care. The registered manager told us they addressed any concerns promptly by communicating directly with people to find suitable solutions.

People and their relatives told us they had a good relationship with the registered manager and found them easily accessible. One person’s relative said they always received a response within the hour when they called or e-mailed. Another person told us, “They are always happy to oblige”.

There was evidence of thank you cards, and positive testimonials from people and their families.

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

The registered manager upheld people’s right to equal access to health and care services, regardless of their background.People received care in line with their assessed needs, and staff ensured support was delivered reliably and as planned. An out of hours system was in place so people could access support in emergency situations.

The registered manager also supported people to access health care services when required. One person told us they contacted the service when they needed continence products ordered from the continence team, and staff would support them to arrange this.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who may be more likely to experience inequality in their care or outcomes and tailored their care accordingly.

The service had procedures in place relating to equality and diversity, and staff had completed training to help them understand and reduce inequalities that could affect people’s experiences or outcomes.

We did not identify any concerns regarding how people experienced the service. There was no evidence that anyone was treated less favourably or that outcomes differed based on personal characteristics, background or individual support needs.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including end of life care, in a way that enabled them to make informed decisions about their future care.

Care plans reviewed did not include future planning or end-of-life considerations. The absence of person-centred future or end-of-life planning meant the provider could not demonstrate how people were being supported to express or record their wishes in a meaningful way. There was no evidence that these discussions were being held proactively.

Although no one was receiving end-of-life care at the time of the inspection and we did not find evidence that people had been placed at risk or that their choices were overlooked, the limited documentation provided little assurance of good practice in this area.