Home Healthcare Delivery - South Tyneside

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 68 (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.

Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and choices. Records showed that care plans had been developed with the involvement of people using the service and, where appropriate, their relatives. They considered short-term needs, personal goals and longer-term outcomes.

People were supported to take part in a wide range of person-centred activities that reflected their interests, preferences and aspirations. These included leisure activities, community events, and educational or occupational opportunities.

Staff respected people’s choices, decisions and what mattered to them, and took these into account when providing care and support.

The provider generally delivered person-centred care that supported people’s choices, independence and continuity. People had individual care plans and were often supported by familiar staff who understood their needs and preferences. However, oversight did not always show that care was reviewed and adjusted promptly when people’s needs changed.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff being caring and responsive. However, care-plan reviews were not always frequent enough, and some records did not contain enough detail to show that care had consistently changed in response to people’s needs. Following the assessment, the provider increased care-plan reviews and continued work to improve visit times.

The provider promoted continuity by planning rotas around people’s needs and preferences and using familiar care teams. This helped staff build trusting relationships and support people’s choices, independence and wellbeing.

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

People could access their care and support plans and associated information via applications on staff devices. Staff were available to answer any questions or concerns as they arose. People were involved in care reviews where information was exchanged.

Staff supported people’s understanding by providing information in several formats. This included easy-read documents, pictorial and communication aids to assist such as Makaton, flash cards and technology-based tools. This approach allowed people who may otherwise not be heard, be involved and engaged in information sharing discussions.

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.

Annual surveys were used to gather feedback from people about their experience of care. The provider used this feedback to identify strengths and areas for improvement.

Where feedback identified areas for development, the provider created and implemented action plans. This helped ensure concerns were addressed and improvements were made in a timely and structured way.

The provider supported people to access the care, support and treatment they needed. However, there were barriers to some people accessing other healthcare services. We found evidence in care records that health professionals within multidisciplinary teams, such as SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) and district nurses, had been contacted when outside professional support was needed. Where referrals had not previously been made, the provider had taken steps to ensure these were completed and that all necessary action had been taken on their part to support access to services.

There were systems in place to monitor visits, however, we identified several late calls and issues with rota planning, including a lack of allocated travel time. This increased the risk that people did not always receive care at the planned time.

Staff were aware of who they should contact in an emergency. The provider operated an out‑of‑hours support system, and the management team was available by telephone to offer guidance when needed.

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.

The pre-admission process enabled staff to gather information before people moved into the service, giving them time to build relationships and trust. People’s backgrounds and personal circumstances were considered, helping to prevent gaps in care and support.

Each person had an individual, person-centred care plan. Staff understood people’s needs and respected their rights, choices and decisions. They had received equality and diversity training, and no concerns about discrimination were raised.

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.

An advanced care planning policy was in place to support staff to provide care in line with people’s wishes and preferences. At the time of review, no one using the service was receiving end of life care.

Training in end of life and palliative care was available to staff when needed. Although not mandatory, records showed most staff had completed it. This showed the provider had taken steps to prepare staff to deliver appropriate care if required.

The provider told us end of life care plans were developed for anyone identified as needing this support. Discussions about future care were offered to all people using the service so their wishes and preferences could be explored and recorded where appropriate.