Alcazar Court

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 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.

Care records showed staff planned and delivered care around what mattered to each person. Care plans clearly described individual needs, preferences, routines, and goals, enabling staff to provide consistent, personalised support.

Staff explained they used care plans to tailor care and respond to changes in people’s needs. They described adapting support based on people’s preferences and reviewing care when circumstances changed. This helped ensure care remained responsive and person centred.

Relatives said staff understood their family member well and provided care in line with their wishes. They felt involved in discussions about care and said staff listened to their views when care plans were reviewed. One person said, “I have a care plan and they [staff] have spoken with me about what I need and want to have done.

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.

Care plans reflected the support people received from relatives and other services. Staff understood shared roles and responsibilities, which supported coordinated care and reduced the risk of gaps or duplication. One relative said, “I do the shopping for [name] staff know this and will tell me if [name] is running out of stuff.”

Staff received role appropriate and condition specific training, and new staff were supported to understand people’s needs and how to work alongside families and health and social care professionals. This helped ensure consistent and informed care.

People were supported by a small, consistent staff team, which helped build trusting relationships and improved staff understanding of people’s preferences and routines.

The provider communicated effectively with relatives, care workers and commissioners. Records showed clear processes to monitor delivered hours, review funding, and respond to changing needs. This ensured care remained flexible, joined up, and responsive over time.

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

For example, a person received regular one to one meetings and information about activities and meetings in a format the person understands. This has helped to person to form meaningful relationships and enabled the person to take part in activities offered by the service.

Care records, tenant meeting minutes and newsletters were available in different formats and languages. For example, where a person’s first language was not English, the service arranged staff who spoke the same language, used translation support and recorded key words and communication methods in the person’s care documentation. Staff said this helped the person express choices, join activities and build relationships. For people who were deaf or had hearing difficulties, staff used basic signs and adapted communication. A relative said staff did their best but would welcome access to a British Sign Language interpreter, showing that the service had reduced some barriers while further improvement was still needed.

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.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Relatives confirmed this. A relative said, “If changes were needed, I would speak to the manager and the local authority about any additional funding. I have never had any issues, and the manager is very helpful.”

Relatives described feeling able to raise concerns and confident they would be listened to. There was a system to log concerns, record actions taken, and provide feedback, supporting timely and proportionate responses. A relative said, “I made a complaint and was happy with how it was handled. The service responded promptly.”

The provider had an up-to-date complaints policy that clearly explained how to raise concerns and what to expect. Managers investigated concerns in line with the policy, with records showing thorough reviews focused on understanding issues and improving practice.

Staff involved people and relatives through regular, day to day communication. Records showed staff shared updates and explained changes to care, helping people feel informed and involved in decisions that affected them.

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

The registered manager explained that decisions about accepting and continuing care were based on people’s needs and the service’s ability to meet them safely. This helped ensure access was not restricted by background or funding source. The registered manager said, “Care plans are reviewed at least every 6 months and sooner following changes in need, hospital admission, respite or extended leave. Relevant professionals are involved when care arrangements needed to change.”

Care records showed the service supported people with a range of needs. The registered manager described making reasonable adjustments, such as flexible visit times and working with families to reduce barriers to access.

They described clear processes to prioritise care during periods of disruption. Business continuity arrangements ensured people with the highest needs continued to receive support first, helping maintain equitable access.

The provider communicated with people and relatives, and commissioners when people’s needs changed.

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 provider actively considered how people’s individual circumstances may affect their experience of care. Care plans recorded people’s protected characteristics, communication needs, and personal circumstances, helping staff tailor care and reduce the risk of unequal experiences.

Care records showed staff made reasonable adjustments to support people’s needs. These included adapting communication, routines, and support approaches to help people achieve similar outcomes. This helped ensure people received care that was fair and appropriate to them.

Staff used ongoing monitoring to identify differences in experience or outcomes. Managers reviewed care and responded when people’s needs changed. This prevented disadvantage and promoted consistent outcomes.

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.

The service asked people about their wishes for future care and objectives they wanted to achieve. Staff provided care which helped people work towards these objectives. At the time of our assessment, no one using the service was being cared for at the end of their lives. Staff had undertaken training about providing end of life care.