Ontra Healthcare

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.

People received care that was person‑centred and reflective of their individual routines, preferences, communication needs and life histories. People, and where appropriate their relatives were involved in care planning reviews to ensure information was kept up to date.

The provider asked people for feedback on their care as part of the spot check process, as well as during care plan reviews.

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 with a range of care needs were supported by the provider. Staff worked closely with visiting health and social care professionals to ensure support was tailored and met people’s individual needs. This joint working helped ensure people received coordinated care and appropriate support in line with their assessed needs. One external professional told us, “There is collaborative working towards a common goal to safeguard people.”

The provider worked collaboratively with other services, such as day centres, to ensure people’s care was well coordinated and supported their access to meaningful social activities. Flexible and joined up care arrangements were put in place so that care provision did not become a barrier to attending activities that were important to people. The provider maintained partnerships with external services, and changes in people’s needs or concerns were communicated appropriately.

Staff told us they consistently supported the same people, which meant people received continuity in care and staff knew people and their preferences well.

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

The provider supplied information to people in a range of accessible formats to meet individual needs such as, easy read documents, large print, simplified language and visual communication tools.

The provider offered an easy read service user handbook to people, which explained the service, people’s rights and how to raise a concern, all in an accessible format.

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 and their relatives were able to share feedback about their care through reviews, spot checks and surveys. The registered manager told us there had been a low uptake in responses to surveys. They recognised this as an area for improvement and expressed a commitment to exploring ways to increase participation. Where feedback had been received, this had been reviewed and actions had been identified. However, people and their relatives knew who the registered manager was and told us they felt confident in raising concerns with them.

There were systems to manage complaints. A complaint policy was in place that detailed the process of managing complaints, complaints had been responded to in accordance with the policy.

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

The provider was aware of people who may face inequality and tailored care and support in response to this. They showed an understanding of individual circumstances and took steps to ensure people received equitable and personalised support. For example, 1 person who was non-verbal required the use of a taxi service to access the community. The provider worked with a local taxi company to ensure they understood the person’s needs and where they want to travel to. This meant they were able to continue to access the community and attend social activities.

There was an on-call service in place to support staff and people who used the service.

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.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and human rights to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people.

People’s equality characteristics such as their religion were recorded in their care plans. The cultural and spiritual needs of people were taken into account when providing care.

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 were given the opportunity to discuss advanced care planning, treatment escalation and end of life preference. Where people had chosen not to discuss this, their choice had been respected. People’s care plans contained information on their resuscitation status.

The provider had policies in place for advance care planning and end of life care.