Guild Healthcare

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 received support which met their outcomes and goals. Care plans, risk assessments and notes focused on what was important to the person and how they want to receive support. People told us they were involved and consulted about their care. Staff knew people well. People had consistent continuity of care.

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.

The service worked with health and social care professionals to ensure people received the right support at the right time. People received support flexibly to fit around their life. Where changes were needed, office staff worked to meet people’s preferred visit times and accommodate any changes. One person’s relative told us “They are very flexible as [relative] will go and stay with family members and the company will stop the service temporarily and then resume when required, this works very well as it allows [relative] to see their family members without the concern that care will not be provided when they return.”

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

People were given information in a way which met their communication needs. The provider met the Accessible Information Standard whereby they could provide information in alternate formats, when needed. Peoples communication needs and preferences were recorded within their care plans.

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 felt fully consulted and involved in decisions about their care. Staff, people and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns or feedback to leaders and this feedback would be acted upon. There was a complaints procedure in place which was shared with people, and the provider responded promptly to concerns before they developed into formal complaints. One relative told us “The complaints procedure was explained at the point of the initial care plan; we have not had to make any complaint.” One person told us “My care plan is reviewed by the office, and I am listened to when I request a change in call times.”

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

People benefitted from approaches which embraced collaboration. Leaders actively worked in close partnership with health and social care partners to ensure people had access to the support, equipment and services they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence of joint working with occupational therapists and other 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.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity, and staff understood people had a right to be treated fairly and equally. People and family members were positive about the care and support they were receiving and that they are supported with referrals to doctors and other health professionals when needed.

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.

Staff we spoke with assured us that they were familiar with people's 'Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) records or RESPECT forms and the importance of them. Care plans were clear in showing peoples choices in relation to their resuscitation status and end of life wishes.

Staff told us they were not currently supporting anyone with end-of-life care. We found evidence the service held end of life discussions with the individual where it was appropriate or relevant, and these were recorded within peoples care plans.