Affinity Trust - Domicilary Care Agency - Leeds

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.

This service scored 59 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatmentchoices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond toany relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans outlined people’s health, emotional and social needs, including those linked to their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. However, they did not always reflect people’s current and emerging needs. The management team acknowledged this and confirmed that reviews were underway to ensure documentation was accurate and up to date. Management also confirmed that some staff were not fully familiar with the needs of the people they supported, which was evidenced by gaps in staff signatures confirming they had read individuals’ care documentation.

1 person using the service followed a certain faith, and their care documentation stated that staff should ensure their diet remained Halal. The care plan stated, “All staff will be made aware that I follow a Halal diet. Only Halal food will be prepared and cooked for me in line with guidance in my support plan.” During the assessment, the person in charge told us that the individual did not always adhere to this preference; however, this change was not reflected in their care plan. Clarity was needed to ensure the person’s religious needs and wishes were fully understood and not compromised.

The provider did not always ensure that people’s care and treatment were discussed with their relatives. Some relatives told us they had not been involved during care plan reviews and had not been asked for their views or feedback.

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.Care plans showed positive evidence of how the service supported people to integrate with the local community around their homes. 1 person’s support plan highlighted how they liked to get out into the local community in their wheelchair and how staff should support them with this activity. All care plans contained a section around how people were supported regarding their leisure time and what they liked to do and how the staff were to support them with engaging with their identified activities.

The provider did not always ensure that information was presented in appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date formats tailored to people’s individual needs.

Not all staff were confident in using the new electronic system implemented across the services, which created a risk that support plans did not contain current or complete information about the care being delivered. Documentation also showed that staff were not consistently recording their day‑to‑day interactions with people, resulting in care records that were not always up to date.

The provider assured us that further training would be delivered to improve staff competency and confidence in using the system.

The provider told us that a range of formats were available to support people’s understanding of their care plans, including pictorial versions and shorter “about me” summaries.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not consistently demonstrate that people using the service were actively engaged to share their views or describe their experiences. Opportunities for involvement were limited, as meetings for people were sporadic and not reliably scheduled.The provider had begun developing a survey to gather feedback; however, this had not been completed at the time of our assessment.

People and their relatives had opportunities to raise concerns or make complaints, and these were investigated with outcomes and any required actions clearly recorded.

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

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found evidence in the care documentation that showed health professionals within the multidisciplinary teams were contacted when a person required outside professional support such as SALT (Speech and Language Therapy), physiotherapist, social workers and GPs. The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We did not identify any concerns or barriers relating to people’s ability to access these services.

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.

Care plans reviewed demonstrated that people’s histories, life experiences, goals and strengths were clearly reflected. The provider worked effectively with external professionals to ensure individuals had equitable opportunities to achieve positive and meaningful outcomes. Training records showed that staff had completed equality and diversity training and had access to relevant policies. This supported staff to understand people’s diverse needs and to respond in a way that promoted positive and inclusive outcomes.

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. Care plans demonstrated that the provider supported people to plan for both small and significant goals, aspirations and life changes. They worked collaboratively with people and relevant external professionals to help them achieve these goals and to navigate important transitions in their lives. However, end‑of‑life care plans were not always completed, meaning people’s wishes about how they wanted to be supported at the end of their life were not clearly recorded.