Turning Point - Coqbeck Support Domiciliary Care Agency

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 key question was previously rated good. This key question remains 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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They decided, in partnership with the provider, family members and where appropriate external professionals how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Care was personalised, regularly reviewed and changed when needed. One relative said, “They have set it up around [person]. I knew he was settled at the house when he had been back to our house to visit, and then he said he wanted to go ‘home’. It really is his home now. He has everything he wants and they understand him.”

Staff were consistent in their understanding of how to focus on people’s individual needs and to ensure their care was specific to them.

There had previously been a specific documentary approach to celebrating people’s individual achievements, called Magic Moments. This was not possible to replicate on the provider’s electronic records systems, so some strong examples of person-centred care were not always being celebrated. The provider committed to reviewing the best way to capture and share these moments in the future.

The provider ensured people’s care was joined up. This meant they worked flexibly with a range of external partners and ensured they had the information they needed to support people. People’s care was consistent and the staff were dependable. There were positive, mutually respectful relationships between people and staff. One person said, “This place is brilliant – the staff know I need some help but can do most things on my own, and they respect that.”

Staff received the right training to deliver person-centred care. Leaders understood the need to work well with other services and to advocate for people. They were proactive in checking in with external clinicians and services to enable the smoothest provision of care. One external professional said, “They are proactive and call at the right times - for example issues with vaccinations and medications. They foresee issues and try to rectify them weeks in advance.”

The service provided information to people in a way they understood. The majority of information was shared by staff who communicated well verbally with people. The provider also used a range of means to communicate key updates to people. This included a newsletter, social media and house meetings. The provider acted in line with the Accessible Information Standard to ensure people’s information was accessible to them when they needed it. We observed staff altering their communication style with different people to best ensure they understood.

The provider also communicated well with relatives and others involved in people’s care. One relative said, “I have seen the notes they make on (person). They are comprehensive. I have also seen their communication book, so I know that things get passed on. The staff are very open with me.” Another said, “They are always updating us and we can always contact them if needed.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There were house meetings and an open, supportive culture in which suggestions were positively responded to and people were encouraged to take a lead with their ideas.

People and relatives were confident they could raise any issues, whether they were positive suggestions or concerns. One person said, “I know what to do if I needed to make a complaint. I have made friends with a couple of people who live in the flats.” A relative told us, “The manager is lovely and I can always get hold of the next level up of management if needed. If I phone the house, I always get through quickly. I can’t remember ever having to make a complaint but I know they would listen.”

Complaints were rare. There was a policy in place to ensure they were handled consistently, and regular audits to ensure any patterns or trends could be identified.

People were well supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs, in a way that worked for them.

Staff ensured people had access to the right health and social care services by working openly and approachably with a range of partners.

Care planning was up to date and accurate. This contributed to keeping people safe.

People experienced a consistent, person-centred approach from the service, which helped to ensure, wherever practicable, an equity of experience. Staff worked hard to ensure other partners involved in people’s health care understood people’s needs, preferences and anxieties. They worked in partnership with people and, where needed, advocated strongly and consistently for them.

No one was receiving end of life care. The service supported people who had relatively high levels of independence. People and staff had built strong rapports so were able to have sensitive conversations about their changing needs. Records in relation to people’s preferences should their needs change significantly in the future were at times in need of review and further detail. For example, through the use of advanced care planning. This is where people can set out what medical support they want in the future, should they no longer have capacity to make such decisions.