Archived: Santos 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

Our rating for this question has remained requires improvement. People did not always feel their care supported their current needs. Staff did not always demonstrate a good understanding of people’s diverse needs. Care plans contained some information about people’s end of life wishes. There was a complaints policy in place which was followed when people raised concerns about their care.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed views about whether people felt they received person-centred care. Some people felt care was tailored specifically to them, while others felt staff had not taken in to account their individual needs.

Staff shared examples with us of how they provided personalised care. This included singing songs people enjoyed while providing care or changing the creams they used after a person expressed they were too cold.

Leaders told us people received person centred care and information about their preferences was included in their care plans.

People told us staff worked alongside other agencies to ensure their health and social care needs were met.

The management team told us they liaised with relevant professionals in order to meet people’s care needs. Staff advised they did not have involvement with external agencies and this was led by the management team.

We did not receive any concerns from partner agencies about the continuity of people’s care.

Care records reflected that in recent months people had received care from a consistent team of staff.

Feedback about how information was provided to people was mixed. Some people were aware of and had a copy of their care plan, others were not.

Staff told us they supported people’s communication needs by explaining things verbally to them.

Information about people’s communication needs was contained in their care plans. For example, guidance for staff included, ‘Carers should speak clearly, using a normal pace, and ensure I have access to written notes or instructions when necessary’. In their PIR the nominated individual told us, ‘We have information available in all formats should they be required by the service user or their families.'

Feedback about how staff and leaders listened to people and encouraged them to share their views was mixed. One relative said, “They [staff] just don’t engage with her. There is no social aspect at all, no chat and no connection.” Others expressed more positive views and shared how and when they had raised concerns the management team had taken action to improve their experience.

Staff were aware of the provider’s complaints process and told us they had directed people to contact the management team where they had concerns about their care.

Leaders told us they followed their complaints procedure when people contacted them with concerns and recorded any outcomes so these could be shared with people and their families.

Records of complaints reflected the management team had taken appropriate action in response to concerns raised with them. This included investigating the complaint, providing an outcome to the person and addressing any concerns with staff if required.

Feedback about how people’s care was personalised and reflective of their diverse needs was mixed. Some people felt this was considered by staff, where others felt care was not tailored to them.

Staff we spoke with were unable to explain how they ensured people’s rights were protected and how they removed barriers which may prevent people from receiving care that reflected their protected characteristics and values. Responses from leaders were similar and lacked understanding about the need to consider people’s diverse needs.

We did not receive any concerns from partner agencies about how potential barriers to care were managed by the provider.

Care records did not always show how barriers to care were removed and people’s rights protected.

Feedback about outcomes for people was mixed. Some people felt they were supported in line with their individual needs and this worked well for them, while others felt care was delivered in an impersonal way which had a negative impact on their well-being.

Staff we spoke with were not clear about how they would make reasonable adjustments for the people they supported. Leaders told us people’s needs were assessed and this considered any diverse needs.

Processes had not identified that systems were not in place to ensure peoples protected characteristics had been considered or planned for. Although basic information about people’s religion or beliefs was contained in care plans guidance was not available for staff to follow to ensure they provided care which gave consideration to people’s protected characteristics.

People told us their end of life care planning needs were met by community healthcare professionals and information was recorded in their care plan.

Staff were aware of some information in relation to people’s end of life wishes. They shared with us examples of the action they would take in the event that someone required end of life care. Leaders told us this information was recorded during assessments and documented in people’s care plans.

Care plans contained basic guidance for staff about people’s end of life wishes. Information such as pain management preferences and family contacts were recorded in accordance with the person’s wishes. However, some of these plans were not holistic and lacked personalisation and detail about people’s specific end of life care wishes. This meant there was a risk that people’s end of life care needs may not be met.