Compassion Care 24/7 Supported Living 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 inspection 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 experienced care that reflected their choices, preferences and routines. Staff described adapting support based on individual needs and ensuring care plans were “all about them”. People confirmed they were asked what they wanted and felt listened to, with 1 saying, “They [care staff] ask me what I want and have helped me plan goals; they are proactive”. Relatives also told us staff involved them in discussions about care, such as writing out instructions before going away and being kept updated about changes. Care plans did not always contain full detail, but people and relatives consistently reported care was personalised and delivered in a way that met their day‑to‑day preferences.

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 generally experienced continuity of staff, and duty rosters showed most had a small and consistent team supporting them. People and families valued this, telling us care staff were familiar and reliable. One person said, “It’s usually the same lady, they never force me and prepare what I like”. Staff confirmed they usually worked with the same people and communicated changes through the app or group chat. Emergency information for external professionals was not initially available, however, the provider acted promptly to create hospital passports and information sheets after this was identified.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People told us communication from staff and the office was clear, helpful and timely. A relative said, “She [office staff member] is ridiculously helpful” when describing contact with the office team. Staff demonstrated understanding of confidentiality, describing data protection as “keeping things private and confidential and always asking for consent”. Communication needs were not initially recorded in care plans, but these were added promptly following inspection feedback. People told us staff explained what they were doing and ensured they understood options, and relatives said they were kept updated about appointments, medication supplies and changes.

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 relatives felt able to raise concerns and said the service responded quickly. One relative told us, “If I raise anything, they [office staff] sort it out straight away,” and another said they “would recommend the service” and felt confident complaints would be handled professionally. Staff described how they informed the office of any dissatisfaction or changes, stating, “If a person is not happy, I will ask them to call the office and I will call too”. The provider had a clear complaints process, and relatives gave examples of issues being resolved, such as correcting a rota mix‑up. Despite some areas for improvement, people consistently felt listened to and involved.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equitable access to the service regardless of funding, background or protected characteristics. There were no concerns from people or families about discrimination or unmet needs. Out of hours support was available for staff and people/family members enabling them to receive prompt support when required.

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 described adapting care based on culture or gender preferences and checking this at assessment. Relatives said staff were sensitive to cultural needs, and 1 told us, “[Name] prefers a male carer, and they arranged that”. Staff could identify when people needed more support, such as arranging longer calls or extra visits, and described how they supported people to access GPs, district nurses and urgent care when needed.

People were not always 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. The service supported people with future planning, but documentation and consistency required improvement. For example, there were no end of life or future planning documentation for 6 of the people whose care plans we reviewed.

Some people told us they discussed goals with staff, and 1 said carers were helping them plan for “the next step in the spring” regarding getting out more. Staff confirmed they supported end of life care when needed and had undertaken relevant training. However, care plans lacked information about people’s aspirations, future goals and planning for deterioration or emergency situations. While people felt staff were supportive, systems were not fully developed to ensure consistent, proactive future planning.