Best Pinnacle Care Limited

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.

Where people had expressed a preference for male or female staff, these preferences were respected and implemented. One person told us, “I need two carers. I have male and female carers, and the female carer always does the personal care. They are very respectful and understand I only want a female carer doing the personal care. The female carer ensures the bathroom door is closed when I am having my wash.”

People said when their needs changed, the provider worked with them to ensure their care and treatment continued to reflect their wishes. They told us they received support from a consistent team of staff who knew them well, which helped them feel safe and comfortable.

Staff were able to clearly describe how they delivered person‑centred care and provided several examples, demonstrating a good understanding of the people they supported.

Care plans, risk assessments, and daily records reflected individuals’ gender identity, personal preferences, and specific needs. People’s health, emotional, social, and cultural needs were clearly documented.

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 service worked effectively with other health and social care professionals on their behalf. People and their relatives said the service supported them in arranging and attending appointments. Leaders described the range of partner organisations they worked with, and we saw evidence of this through referral records and documented communication.

Partner organisations did not raise any concerns about the way the service collaborated with them to ensure care was delivered in a coordinated and consistent manner.

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

People we spoke with raised no concerns about the information provided by the service. They told us they had the contact details for the registered manager and the office, and that responses were always timely.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to adapt their communication styles and provided examples of how they adjusted their approach to meet people’s individual needs.

People’s communication needs were clearly documented within their care plans. We saw evidence that the provider had adapted its service agreement into an easy‑read format for people with learning disabilities, in line with the Right support, right care, right culture guidance.

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy which they followed.

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 told us they understood how to raise concerns, although most people said they had not needed to do so because staff and the registered manager were responsive.

Leaders acknowledged that a formal process for gathering routine feedback was not yet in place. They said people contacted the service regularly and there was an open, two‑way communication approach. Leaders told us they planned to introduce a structured feedback system to capture people’s views more consistently.

A compliment, feedback, and complaints log was in place, and there was evidence of actions taken and learning outcomes recorded.

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

People told us the provider had listened to their preferred visit times and had accommodated these where possible. One person said, "I was fully involved in the timings of the calls and what support I required." Another person described how the provider had responded promptly when their relative’s needs changed and additional support was required.

People’s care plans contained clear information to guide staff on accessibility needs within the community.

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.

Leaders showed a good understanding of the principles set out in Right support, right care, right culture, and staff had received training on supporting people with learning disabilities.

Staff were able to describe how they adjusted their communication methods and ways of working to ensure people with learning disabilities received equitable, accessible, and appropriate support.

Equality and diversity training had been completed, and relevant policies were in place to support inclusive practice. Easy‑read materials were available to support people who required accessible information.

People’s care plans included detail about their social, cultural, and spiritual needs. This helped staff deliver care that respected equitable, person‑centred 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.

People told us the service had discussed future planning with them in a sensitive and appropriate manner. Where individuals chose not to engage in these discussions, the provider respected their wishes.

One person described a positive experience of how the service had supported both their relative and themselves during the end‑of‑life stage. They said, “Overall, as a family, we were happy with the service. Our loved one's wishes were granted; they were at home with their family when they passed. I am grateful for the support from [Service], and the management were very good at organising the support and were very understanding of the situation.”

Care plans included information about people’s preferences and wishes for their future care.