Supportive Care 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

The provider wanted to ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment by working in partnership with people and responding to any relevant changes in people’s needs. However, care plans did not always fully reflect some people’s physical health needs and some risks identified in people’s care plans had not been reviewed effectively. This meant the provider could not be assured any changes in people’s needs had always been responded to.

All people had care plans, and they were centred around the person and their individual needs. However, there was some conflicting information contained within the care plans. For example, there remained information missing about supporting people with similar medication conditions. The information provided for both people in how to support them in the event of a seizure was identical and was not specific to the individuals themselves.

The staff we spoke with knew the needs of the people they supported.

People’s care plans provided a breakdown of the number of visits they would receive in line with their support needs and what staff were required to do during each care call, although the daily notes did not always reflect the tasks identified within the care plans.

People and their relatives felt fully involved with their care planning which they said met people’s individual needs. Relatives told us they were kept informed around changes to their loved one’s health and wellbeing.

People and their relatives could access their care plan if they wished as it was available through an App on their computers or phones and a paper file was in people’s homes.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The care provided supported people’s choices and was flexible. People’s needs had been reviewed.

People and their relatives told us having the same care staff providing support meant the care was consistent and met individual needs. The provider knew and recognised the importance of regular staff visiting people and accommodated this with people as much as they could.

People told us they received the care they needed at the times they needed it. We were told staff had a good understanding of people’s health and support needs. The provider was aware of the diverse social care needs of the communities they supported and had processes in place to deliver that care to people living in those communities.

The provider worked in partnership with the local authority and health services when continuing with the provision of care for people after their discharge from hospital.

Improvements were needed to ensure information was accessible and the need for accessible information considered and documented in care plans.

There were people who received support living with a learning disability. There were no easy-read documents within their care plans or risk assessments. However, this had no impact on those people because they lived with their family members, who were able to contribute to their care planning and decisions.

Pre-assessments identified whether people had any specific communication needs.

People told us they were happy with the information they received. People and their relatives knew how to access the health and care records via the provider’s app. The provider confirmed if people wanted information in a different format to suit their communication needs or preferences, this could be provided.

The provider had processes for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care.

The registered manager told us there had been no complaints since the provider’s last assessment. The registered manager explained their complaints process and how feedback would be used to monitor for trends and improvements.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise, and who to contact about, any concerns or issues they might have. People and their relatives all said they were confident the provider would deal with their concerns promptly. People and relatives who had raised issues with the provider all told us they had been addressed in a timely way and resolved to their satisfaction.

People and relatives felt listened to and everyone we spoke with had been given the opportunity to give feedback on the quality of the service they received from the provider. Staff told us they had also been given opportunities to feedback on their experiences of working for the provider. The feedback we saw was positive about the service people received.

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

People and their relatives told us they would contact the provider if they required support to access any care services to receive treatment when required.

People told us they were involved in the planning of their support and care plans reflected their input. People and their relatives told us they were in regular contact with the provider and any changes in care needs were addressed in a timely way.

Leaders and staff listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and provided care and support in response to this. However, while care plans considered people’s protected characteristics, some people’s care plans and risk assessments contained generic information that was not always tailored to their individual care and support needs. For example, 2 people with epilepsy had the same description of the type of epilepsy they experienced, their symptoms and the support required from staff within their care plan and risk assessment. Neither person had been identified by a health care professional as having that specific type of epilepsy. The incorrect description for a type of epilepsy could result in people not receiving the specific support they need.

People and their relatives had no concerns about discrimination from the service. Staff treated people equally and with respect. They felt their views were listened to and acted on. Everyone spoken with had confidence in the provider and told us they could raise any concerns and knew they would be dealt with in a timely manner.

Staff had completed their training relating to equality, diversity and inclusion.

People were not always 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.

The provider had processes in place to support people to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life. However, only 7 of the 16 care staff had fully completed end of life training. This meant in the event of a person’s health deteriorating and a change in their support needs, staff may not have the knowledge and skills to support the person or their family members effectively at what could be a very difficult time. At the time of the assessment, there was no one currently supported by the service who required end of life care and support.

The care plans we looked at had a section for people’s preferences and last wishes to be completed in the event of their health deteriorating and to express their preferred wishes.