Innovations24 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.

The provider had a holistic approach to meeting people’s care needs. This included working with people and their relatives to gather and understand important information about their routines, preferences and histories. This approach supported staff to deliver care that was personalised, meaningful and aligned with what mattered most to each person. This enabled them to develop positive relationships and have meaningful conversations with people.

A staff member told us how they provided social support to a person and this included attending a weekly gardening club which they told us the person enjoyed and promoted their wellbeing.

Relatives were complimentary about the benefits of the service in meeting people’s social needs. A family member told us how staff supported their relative with shopping and walking, which they enjoyed. They said, “This support has been brilliant because they had become such a recluse.” Relatives also described the positive impact on themselves, explaining that the service reduced their reliance on being the main carer, in some cases, it had enabled them to focus on social activities with their loved one, while staff supported daily routines that made this possible.

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.

Feedback from professionals was positive about how well the service met people’s individual needs. A professional said, “My experience of working with the service is really good I found the staff very proactive with the person, and it was obvious the person was central to their care and their voice mattered. The team were very prompt if additional assessments were required.”

Another professional told us “In the 25 years of working in mental health and with the elderly, this service is the best I've ever worked with, they go above and beyond and makes such an effort with [name], I've never seen [name] so happy and relaxed and laugh so much in the last five years, this is a credit to the staff team.”

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

The Accessible Information Standard (a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can be understood) was met. People’s sensory needs had been assessed and planned for. Guidance for staff included prompts to support with glasses and hearing aids such as ensuring they were clean, correctly fitted and in working order.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s different communication needs. A staff member said, “We may use visual aids, gestures and clear language for people with communication difficulties.”

The provider’s service user guide provided information for people about what they could expect from the service, including relevant contact details. The registered manager told us that this document could be made available in alternative formats, such as other languages, large print, and easy read.

The provider’s systems and processes were not fully effective in supporting people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not consistently or always formally involve people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider told us they gave people and relatives the opportunity to provide feedback about their experience of the service through a six‑monthly questionnaire, and a monthly electronic survey. However, no evidence was shared to confirm this. The provider did confirm, they did not complete any analysis to support learning or identify themes and trends. This meant the provider could not demonstrate how feedback was used to drive improvements or inform service development.

People and relatives told us formal feedback had declined and had become more informal. A relative said, “They (provider) did do surveys at the start, but they haven’t done one recently.” Another relative said, “They (provider) did do questionnaires, but they seem to have dropped off.”

People and relatives had access to the provider’s complaints policy and procedure. They told us they felt confident raising concerns and described the management team as approachable, responsive and proactive. When concerns had been raised, they were taken seriously and acted upon.

Whilst complaints were logged and had been investigated and resolved, there was no analysis and leaning to support service development.

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

The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. For example, the management team were as flexible as possible in facilitating changes to people’s care packages, and ensured people accessed external support and services when required.

This was confirmed by people and relatives, who told us the service adapted quickly when their circumstances changed and ensured support remained appropriate and effective. An example was given how a person using the service was unexpectedly hospitalised, and a staff member remained with the person until their relative arrived.

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 relatives described significant positive changes since care began. These included improved nutrition and hydration, better personal hygiene, enhanced wellbeing and reduced isolation.

Several relatives told us the care provided had reduced the burden on family members, enabled them to resume normal activities, and offered reassurance.

People using the service described the care as being, “excellent,” “reliable” and “life‑enhancing”, with some saying it was the “best care” they had received.

The management team and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy, providing guidance on the importance of treating people equally. This was further supported by staff training.

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 end of life care plans and wishes had been discussed and shared with staff. Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) and Advanced Decisions. This information was available for staff to ensure people’s wishes and plans were known and understood.