Rapid Care

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 64 (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 had not always made sure that the systems and processes in place supported staff to deliver person-centred care. Some care records did not contain detailed person-centred guidance about how to meet people’s individual needs. This meant all staff including newer staff did not have access to guidance which would enable them to provide a consistent level of person-centred care.

However, staff were passionate about providing person-centred care. A staff member said, “[People are] at the centre of their care; wants, needs and desires met and advocating for them. Engage clients and wear what they want to, eat what they want to and wellbeing is met, receiving the best care for their well-being.” People and relatives felt staff met their individual needs and records of the daily care people received supported this. A relative gave an example of how their loved one experienced discomfort from an injury and found massage helpful, the relative told us staff made this a priority.

Some people and relatives felt that they had not always received continuity of care. They fedback that they frequently had their care provided by different carers and they would like consistency.

Records did not always contain up to date information about people’s needs or detailed guidance about how to provide people’s required care. This meant there was a risk staff may not provide consistent care for people and staff had to rely on each other to know how to support some people safely and in line with their preferences.

Staff told us they felt confident they provided continuity in care as they worked with other staff who knew people well and learnt how to carry out the care calls. Staff also said the care tasks required were listed on their service’s system. Staff marked them as complete during calls which they felt supported them to consistently meet people’s needs.

Some people and relatives were positive about the service provision. A relative said, “The team is responsive, consistent and fully understanding of [loved one’s] needs."

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and relatives had access to information and feedback from most was that communication was good. Some relatives fedback that information was not always accurate or accessible in the service’s care app. For example, a relative told us they could not always access copies of the staff rota to see who would be delivering their loved ones care in advance. Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs which were recorded in their care records. For example, staff were aware of people who may have vision impairments and ensured people had access to their glasses.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People and relatives told us they felt listened to, they shared examples of when they had raised concerns or suggestions and how these had been acted on. Staff supported people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. A staff member shared an example which demonstrated how they supported a person to raise a concern about the arrangement for their care call and how this resulted in a positive change to their arrangement which improved the person’s experience of their care.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had not always ensured people’s needs were supported in full in a timely manner for example, some people had not received their prescribed medicines which the provider had not identified or addressed until we raised it with them during our inspection.

Staff supported people during care calls to have equal access to things they needed. For example, staff left drinks, snacks and walking aids within reach of people at the end of their care calls to ensure they were able to support themselves safely in between their care calls.

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. The management team told us they sent quality monitoring surveys to people and gave examples of action they had taken to improve the service based on the feedback received although feedback was positive from those who responded. The management team were aware some people preferred telephone contact while others preferred written contact, and staff were available to support people where necessary to share their views. The provider also carried out spot checks to ensure people had equal opportunities and experience from the care provided.

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. Staff were aware of people’s decision about their care should they become unwell or in a medical emergency and people’s decisions were clearly recorded in their care records.

The provider had also assessed and planned to ensure contingencies were in place to minimise any disruption to people’s care in the event of company wide emergencies.