Tendacare

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 79 (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 was described as flexible and tailored, with staff adapting visits, routines and communication approaches to meet individual needs. Care planning included people’s life history, preferences and emotional needs, and staff were expected to encourage independence and support people to make choices about their care.

Examples included adjusting visit lengths following feedback and adapting communication methods, such as using visual aids or allowing more time for people with hearing loss or dementia.

Staff consistently described a relationship-based approach, taking time to understand people and respond sensitively to changes in mood, wellbeing or physical health. This helped people feel comfortable and supported. Outcomes included improved independence, reduced anxiety and better overall wellbeing.

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 were usually supported by a regular group of staff, which helped build trusting relationships and enabled staff to recognise changes in people’s needs. Rotas were carefully planned to balance consistency with flexibility, and where changes were unavoidable, efforts were made to allocate staff who were familiar with people’s care.

Staff worked in partnership with a range of health and social care professionals, including GPs, district nurses and therapists, and made timely referrals when people’s needs changed. This supported safe and coordinated care delivery, including during hospital admissions and discharges.

The provider demonstrated an exceptional commitment to ensuring people were fully involved in decisions about their care by sharing information in ways that were meaningful, accessible and tailored to individual needs.

Communication needs were comprehensively assessed from the point of referral and continually reviewed to ensure support remained responsive as people's needs changed. Staff used a wide range of personalised communication approaches, including verbal and written information, large-print documents, visual aids, digital applications and other bespoke tools to maximise understanding and engagement.

The service embraced technology to enhance openness and strengthen relationships with families. Relatives had real-time access to updates about care and visits through a digital platform, providing reassurance, promoting transparency and enabling them to remain actively involved in supporting their family member.

Staff displayed outstanding knowledge and skill in adapting their communication to meet people’s diverse needs. They confidently supported people who used non verbal ways to communicate, had sensory impairments or required additional time and reassurance to process information. As a result, people were empowered to express their views, make informed choices and retain control over decisions affecting their lives.

This highly individualised approach created a culture where people felt listened to, understood and valued, ensuring their voices remained central to the planning and delivery of care.

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, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback, and this was used to improve the service. Examples included extending visit times and making adjustments to improve safety and reduce anxiety.

There were systems in place to gather feedback through regular contact, digital communication and ongoing reviews. Families could remain involved in care through shared information systems and communication with staff.

Staff told us they felt confident raising concerns and shared that there was an open and transparent culture.

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

Care was planned flexibly to meet a range of needs, including supporting people with different communication needs, disabilities, cultural backgrounds and personal preferences.

People were supported to access healthcare services, attend appointments and remain engaged with their community. Reasonable adjustments were made where required, for example adapting visit times or care approaches to meet religious needs, such as attending church and routines or personal preferences.

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.
Care plans reflected people’s protected characteristics, including religion, disability and age, and staff supported people to maintain routines and activities that were important to them. This included reducing isolation, supporting independence and promoting wellbeing.
Positive outcomes were reported, including improvements in comfort, reductions in falls and better management of health conditions.
 

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.
Care plans included information about people’s preferences while care was in place including at the end of their life.
Staff worked with other professionals and family members to plan care that supported people to remain independent and maintain quality of life. Where risks increased or needs changed, referrals were made promptly to ensure appropriate support was in place.