Xcel Homes Ltd

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.

People were at the centre of their care. The management team worked with people and their relatives to understand their individual care needs, routines, preferences and what was important to them. This information was made available to staff to support them in developing a person centred approach and enabled positive relationships to be developed and meaningful conversations.

People and relatives were positive and complementary about how they were involved in discussion and decisions. They also confirmed the service was responsive and supportive. A relative said, “I would describe the service as fantastic. Every day the staff will ask if they could do anything else to help me. I feel that I'm constantly asked about my care package and if I'm happy with it.”

Where people received additional social support, relatives praised the staff about the positive impact this had on their family member. A relative said, “In addition to personal care and medication support, staff support [name] with developing independence and daily living tasks such as cooking and cleaning, and they support [name] to access their local community. t's a very responsive and flexible service, any requested changes are responded to positively and quickly.”

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.

Staff collaborated with other professionals to ensure that people’s needs were met. Referrals to external professionals were made in a timely manner. For example, care records confirmed that the management team had made referrals to external healthcare professionals for further assessment and advice and liaised with people’s social workers when required.

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 being met. People’s individual communication needs had been assessed and planned for.

Staff gave examples of how they met people’s communication needs. A staff member said, “Some people have hearing and sight impairments. On arrival I always introduce myself, I always make sure I speak as clearly as possible. If somebody has a hearing aid, I make sure that they are supported to use it, if they wear glasses, I'll make sure that they're clean.”

The provider’s service user guide provided people with information 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 if required.

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. However, whilst people were invited annually to share their experience of the service via a satisfaction survey, there was no system or process of analysing responses received to support any wider learning and service development opportunities.

The provider’s complaint policy had been shared with people and relatives. People and relatives told us they had regular contact with the registered manager, and they knew how to make a complaint and felt able and confident to do so if required. A relative said, “We are invited now and again to complete a survey to share our feedback about using the service. Every care call the staff provide a short report for us of what they've been doing with [name]. “A person said, “I've never had to report a complaint or raise any concerns, but I feel confident to do so, I know that they would respond positively.”

Whilst people and relatives were regularly asked for feedback about their care package, there was no formal procedure in place to support this process. We discussed this with the registered manager, who assured us they would review their systems and processes and make improvements to their ways of working. Clear and consistent documentation is essential to ensure people’s views are captured and used to inform ongoing care planning and to support any wider, service delivery improvements.

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. This was confirmed and evidenced by people and relatives.

People’s care records and feedback received from people, relatives and staff confirmed care was provided by regular care staff who knew people well.

Out-of-office procedures were available to support staff and people and relatives who used the service. A relative said, “Staff never cut corners, they ask and work with you. Communication with the care staff and the management team is all very good. We have a timetable of what care staff to expect.”

Staff were aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to escalating concerns to the management team to protect people from experiencing any barriers to their care and support.

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.

The registered manager made timely referrals to external health and social care professionals to support individuals in accessing the right care and support when needed. The service was flexible and adaptable in supporting people to achieve positive outcomes.

The management team and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care and support. The registered manager was complemented by people, relatives and staff about their supportive and inclusive approach.

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.

Care plans were goal specific. This supported staff to understand what was important to the person and how to support them to achieve their goals.

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.