Gladstone 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.

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

Managers understood the importance of person-centred care and people and their relatives told us they had access to their care plans and felt this was person-centred and tailored to individual needs.

Staff told us systems were in place to monitor and respond to people’s changing needs and professional advice was sought by the service.

Managers and staff told us they advocated on behalf of people and were not afraid to challenge professionals to ensure people received the appropriate support and outcomes.

Most people told us they received support from a consistent staff team who knew them well. Where applicable, care plans reflected additional support provided from relatives. Staff had received enhanced training to support the specific needs of people they supported, including face to face PEG training.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had robust communication support plans in place and staff followed these consistently.

The service involved people and relatives and provided opportunities for them to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Views could be shared in a number of ways including regular people surveys and with staff and managers directly. The service was exploring new initiatives for people and professionals to share their views/feedback via online methods.

A complaints policy was in place and people told us they knew how to raise a complaint and felt able to do so if required. A relative told us, “If I had a complaint I would go into the office and let them know.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us the service was reliable, and support was offered in a timely manner with very few late and missed calls. People told us the service was flexible, and staff stayed longer if required. One relative told us, “[Service] communicated with the family and outside care teams quickly and promptly, facilitating actions for additional care and support when needed.”

Staff told us aids and adaptations had been sought by the service to ensure people could access effective care and support.

Managers told us staff had appropriate access to support in case of emergencies and protocols were in place.

People's personal, cultural, social and religious needs were identified, understood and respected. People consistently told us they had no concerns around discrimination in the service.

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. If they wanted to share this, their decisions were recorded in the care records. Where people did not want to discuss end of life plans, this was documented and re-visited in the future. Staff had requested additional end of life training beyond the mandatory training that was completed, and this was being explored by managers.