Thinkempathy 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 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 71 (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 and relatives told us they were involved in developing and reviewing care plans.

Care plans clearly set out each person’s needs, preferred routines, and the level of support required with personal care. Staff knew people well and responded promptly to minimise discomfort or distress. They understood individual preferences and allowed people to take the lead, including when routines or daily plans changed.

Care plans detailed what was important to each person, including their life history, cultural beliefs, and significant relationships. Staff told us promoting people’s wellbeing was central to their role, as people were more likely to engage in care when they felt comfortable and supported.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people. However, needed to make improvements to ensure consistency in staffing arrangements.

Relatives told us the service would benefit from the recruitment of more permanent staff and a reduction in the use of agency staff. They told us agency staff were not as familiar with people’s needs or as consistent in their approach. They told us their family members responded best when they were supported by consistent staff who knew them well. The provider acknowledged the need to recruit more permanent staff and was addressing this. In the interim, the provider had taken steps to integrate agency staff, such as requesting regular agency staff familiar with people’s needs, monitoring and reviewing agency staff performance, getting feedback from people and pairing of agency staff with experienced team members. This helped to improve the quality and consistency of agency staff’s working performance.

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

People and relatives told us they received the information they needed about their care. The provider understood the Accessible Information Standard and had policies to ensure people received information in formats they could access and understand.

Care plans documented people’s communication needs and any required adjustments. For some people, this included extra support from staff or additional time to process information. Staff understood these needs and used communication aids effectively. They described using pictorial tools to help people structure their day, make choices, and understand transitions between activities. This enabled people to express their wishes and supported their choice and independence.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. The provider involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us communication had improved since the registered manager joined the service. They said leaders were approachable and responsive. The provider had taken steps to improve engagement with relatives, including organising a recent virtual relatives’ meeting.

The provider had a complaints policy, given to people in accessible form, that set out how concerns would be managed. This helped to ensure people understood how to raise a complaint or concerns. People and relatives said the provider responded promptly to feedback and acted when issues arose. Records reflected the provider investigated concerns to resolve them in a timely and transparent way.

People took part in regular review meetings, supported by staff and involving their circle of support. These meetings covered key areas such as health updates, feedback about care, and progress against previously agreed actions or goals. Some people had keyworkers who supported them to identify and review their personal outcomes, helping ensure they remained involved in decisions about their care.

The provider gathered feedback from people, relatives, and stakeholders through a range of methods, including formal reviews, surveys, and day-to-day‑ conversations. They had received several compliments about the quality of care.

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

Care plans recorded people’s protected characteristics and set out how staff should ensure fair and non-discriminatory‑ care. The provider promoted equitable access to healthcare. Staff supported people to attend their annual GP reviews to ensure their health needs were met.

The provider had equality and diversity policies in line with the Equality Act 2010. Staff completed relevant training and demonstrated a good understanding of how to promote fairness, empathy, and respect for people’s individual needs. One staff member told us, “I ensure discussions are respectful and empowering, so (people) feel involved in decisions about their own health.”

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 carried out proactive work to ensure activities were accessible. They contacted transport providers and venues in advance to check they could meet people’s needs.

The provider supported people to have an active voice in raising housing and tenancy issues. For example, they helped people raise an issue about bathroom accessibility at their home, and plans were in place to address this. They also supported people to request and arrange for kitchen surfaces to be lowered, to improve access during food preparation. These actions helped to uphold people’s rights as tenants and promote independence.

Nobody at the service was receiving end of life care support. Due to the age and needs of people, the registered manager told us they had not engaged in conversations around individuals’ future wishes. They said they would approach this subject sensitively with people and their circle of support should this need arise in the future.