Enliven Social 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered 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 their relatives told us they had access to their care plans. Most relatives could access the providers online system an ‘app’ which helped them to know when staff came, left and what they did. One relative said, “I have been given access to the call log and I do that on my phone.” Another relative shared “If something changes and [Person’s] care needs to be updated; it’s all done online very quickly.”

Staff told us they supported people to make choices so they could be at the centre of their care and support.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any changes in people’s needs.

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 received support from a consistent staff team. One relative said, “There is a team of about 6 or 7 carers we see on a rotation.”

Staff confirmed they supported the same people, and this enabled consistency and continuity in the care and support people received. Staff told us how they worked with external professionals to support people for example if someone’s needs had increased to ensure additional support was requested.

Systems were in place to ensure people were supported to obtain help from other health and social care professionals and referred to specialist health teams where appropriate.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed during their initial assessment process and care plans recorded how best to communicate with people. This included information on what equipment was used to support communication for example, hearing aids and glasses. Some people communicated in different ways. For example, 1 person was deaf and another person was deaf and non speaking. Staff communicated through the use of visual cues of objects for example presenting a mug to indicate a hot drink and lip reading.

Staff shared further examples of how communication was adapted to people’s individual needs. One staff member shared one person communicated their needs by using a laminated A-Z communication board. The board enabled the person to spell out words by pointing to individual letters. This supported them to express their wishes and needs effectively.

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and where required was able to provide information in a format which considered people’s communication needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Where people had raised concerns, the provider had a process to review complaints. However, outcomes and actions taken in response to complaints were not always recorded. Also, opportunities were missed for example updating people’s care plans to prevent the risk of reoccurring. Processes in place needed to be improved, whilst the date of when the complaints were received was stated, complaints we viewed did not state when the provider had responded to the complainant.

The registered manager told us in some instances action had been taken but had not always recorded these. The registered manager recognised and agreed there was missed opportunities for learning.

However, people and their relatives told us they were able to feedback any concerns or issues by contacting the office. People and their relatives knew who the manager was and felt able to talk with them directly. One relative told us, “We did have to iron out a few wrinkles when the service first started and they were getting into a routine with [Person] but they listened, took on board what I said and kept me updated.” Another relative said, “I have only ever had to complain once. I emailed about one particular carer. I didn’t see them for a good while, but they have now reappeared and definitely had some training.”

The provider had carried out a service quality questionnaire. People and their relatives had been asked for feedback on the service received. The analysis of the survey found people and their relatives were satisfied with the care and support received.

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

Peoples protected characteristics as described in the Equality Act 2010 were considered at assessment and through care and support provided.

People could access the service speaking directly to staff, when needed through an on-call phone line. One relative told us, “They (Enliven) are always available on the phone and are very flexible as needs change.”

Staff supported people to access the services they required. For example, they made appropriate referrals so people could access equipment to support any mobility needs and to stay as independent as possible.

Staff advocated for people to ensure they were not discriminated against.

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.

People and their relative’s shared people were treated equally and fairly. One relative shared they had requested a female carer on morning call to help deliver personal care which had been respected. One relative said, “One female carer for the morning personal care call was agreed, but other calls are 30 minutes and [Person] does have a male carer sometimes. I will give them their due though, they do let me know if it is going to be a male and they have always stood by the agreement for females only on the morning call.”

Staff undertook training to promote their understanding of equality and diversity.

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’s care records contained future plans, particularly information around end-of-life care. At the time of inspection no one was receiving end of life care.

Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form in place. Information about where these documents were kept in people’s homes was recorded in their care records.

Some staff had undertaken training in end of life care.