CFT 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to person-centred care.
 

This service scored 54 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care choices. They did consistently work in partnership with people and those important to them, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care records did not always evidence person-centred care planning. There was a lack of detail about what was important to people. For example, sections about what people liked and disliked and what they wanted to achieve were not always completed.

People’s potential, interests and skills were not adequately considered. The provider was not able to demonstrate how people were being motivated to lead a full and active life. People were not always supported to explore a wide range of person-centred activities.

The provider had identified shortfalls in person-centred care planning. At the time of the inspection, they were starting to address these by introducing a more detailed care planning document and increasing engagement with people and their relatives. However, this was not yet embedded.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of the people they were supporting. However, we received mixed feedback from health professionals and relatives about how well the provider worked with other professionals to ensure care was joined up and consistently promoted good outcomes for people.

Where people were receiving support from their regular staff teams, we received positive feedback about the continuity in their support. However, where people did not always receive support from a consistent team, people’s relatives told us staff did not always demonstrate a clear and consistent approach to meeting people’s specific needs and preferences.
 

The provider supplied appropriate information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. People’s communication preferences were recorded and we saw examples of information provided in easy read and pictorial formats where appropriate.

The provider had a complaints process in place and we saw evidence of complaints being monitored and outcomes recorded. However, we received mixed feedback from people, relatives and professionals about whether they knew who to contact and about how easy it was to raise concerns with senior management. Relatives told us the provider did not always communicate with them well. We received mixed feedback about whether people and those important to them felt listened to and knew how their feedback was used to drive improvements.

The provider had implemented processes to promote involvement including surveys and ‘You said, we did’ documents. Forums were being introduced to promote better communication. However, this was not yet embedded.
 

The provider promoted equity for people when accessing health services. Appropriate guidance was in place about how to mitigate barriers linked to people’s communication and emotional support needs and their protected characteristics. This minimised the risk of people becoming distressed or having negative experiences when accessing services.

The provider was not always able to evidence how they promoted equality in people’s care or empowered them to lead a full life. People were not always supported to plan goals or explore meaningful activities. The provider was not able to evidence how they had involved people and those important to them in monitoring and reviewing their care to promote better outcomes and improve people’s quality of life.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People’s care plans did not always include specific information about their future planning wishes. Where specific care plans were place, these lacked detail. The provider was aware improvements were needed in this area and were in the process of reviewing and updating the relevant care plans at the time of the inspection.