Anytime Care 2020(Leicester)

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’s assessment, review process, alongside feedback from people demonstrated that people were actively involved in decisions about their care and treatment. People told us they were listened to and that their views, preferences, and desired outcomes were taken into account when planning and reviewing their care.

Whilst we identified shortfalls in other key questions within this report, these related primarily to documentation, governance, and management oversight rather than a lack of person-centred engagement. Overall, the evidence showed that people were involved in decisions about their care and support, and the provider sought to ensure care and treatment reflected their wishes, choices, and changing needs.

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.

People received consistent care and support from staff who knew them well. Staff rotas, daily care records, and feedback from people and staff, confirmed continuity of care was promoted wherever possible.

People told us they valued seeing familiar staff, which helped them feel comfortable and supported.

Records also demonstrated that care was delivered using a multidisciplinary approach. Staff worked with, and made referrals to, relevant health and social care professionals when required to support people's health, wellbeing, and care outcomes.

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

The provider considered people's diverse communication needs and took reasonable steps to ensure information was accessible, understood, and enabled people to be involved in decisions about their care and support.

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.

For example, 1 person used an alphabetical letter board as their chosen method of communication with staff. Staff told us this was an effective method of helping the person express their views, choices, and needs. Another person's communication could be affected by their emotional wellbeing, and staff had clear guidance on the most appropriate ways to communicate with them during these periods.

The provider's service user guide contained information about the service and what people could expect to receive. Information could also be provided in alternative formats to meet individual needs, including easy-read versions, large print, and translations into other languages.

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.

People confirmed they had access to the provider's complaints procedure and were confident about using it if required. Relatives repeatedly told us they would raise any concerns in the first instance with the field supervisor, whom they spoke highly of, or directly with care staff.

Feedback received indicated people and their relatives felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to and addressed.

People and relatives were provided with opportunities to share their experiences of the service. This included involvement in care review meetings and invitations to complete annual satisfaction questionnaires. Feedback was reviewed by the registered manager and used to identify areas for improvement and inform service development.

Where relatives had requested a communication system to share information with care staff, in the absence of being able to access care records, this was provided. This showed how the registered manager had been responsive and supportive and involving relatives in their family member’s care.

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

The provider had systems and processes in place to support people to access care and support in a timely manner. This included arranging care call times that reflected people's individual needs, preferences, and requested schedules. People told us the service was flexible and responsive when changes to care arrangements were required.

The provider also operated an out-of-hours service, ensuring that staff, people using the service, and their relatives could access support, guidance, and advice outside normal office hours. This helped to provide reassurance and ensure any concerns or urgent matters could be responded to promptly.

People confirmed that communication with the service was responsive and that they were able to contact the provider when required. These arrangements helped to ensure people received timely access to care and support and promoted continuity of care.

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.

No concerns relating to discrimination were identified during this assessment. The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place, which provided guidance to staff on the importance of treating people fairly, with dignity and respect, regardless of their background or personal characteristics. This was further supported through staff training.

People's individual needs, preferences, and protected characteristics were considered during the assessment and care planning process. Care plans demonstrated that support was adapted to reflect people's circumstances, choices, and wishes.

Relatives told us the service enabled them to continue caring for their family members at home in the way they wished. This demonstrated the provider's commitment to promoting inclusion, respecting diversity, and supporting people to live in a way that reflected their identity, values, relationships, and personal choices.

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. However, care plans lacked important information for staff and staff had not received end of life care training.

At the time of the inspection, no person was receiving end of life care. However, we were aware staff had previously provided this care. We identified from staff training information they had not received end of life care training. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to review their current training programme, to ensure staff were equipped with the knowledge and skills required to provide this type of care if needed.

Care record reviews confirmed that discussions had taken place with people regarding their future wishes and end-of-life preferences. However, where people had important legal documentation in place, such as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms and other advance care planning documents, records did not clearly identify where this information was stored or how staff could access it when required.

This meant the provider could not be assured that staff would be able to access essential information promptly in an emergency or at critical times. As a result, there was a risk that people's expressed wishes, decisions, and legal arrangements relating to their future care and treatment may not be consistently followed. This potentially may have impacted the delivery of person-centred care at the end of life.