Outlook Care - Veronica Close

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 support choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were person-centred and reflected how they wished to be supported. The care plans we reviewed provided staff with details about the person’s health diagnosis, people important to them, their strengths, preferred food, allergies, activities including indoor and outdoor, and the level of support required on daily basis. Care plans included information about the things that people found distressing and how staff should respond when people became upset or anxious.

People and their relatives had been involved in developing their care plans to help ensure they reflected their needs and preferences. A person said, “Staff do help me with my shower.” A relative told us, “The provider is brilliant. They treat people with respect. I never had any complaint.”

People and their relatives were given the opportunities to feedback about the support they received and make suggestions.

Staff completed various training including positive behaviour support, learning disability and autism, infection control, and safeguarding people. This helped staff to understand people’s support needs and to deliver person centre 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 provider shared information about people’s needs through personalised care plans, risk assessments, positive behaviour support plans and hospital passports, which supported continuity when people experienced changes such as hospital admissions or increased health risks.

Staff received induction training, shadowing experienced staff and had quarterly reviews to enable them to understand the needs of people. The provider worked with people and their relatives to provide consistent care. People’s needs were understood by staff. This was helped by regular team meeting where people’s needs were discussed. A relative said, “I always get a phone call from staff when an incident occurs involving my [relative]. Staff tell me what happened following the GP appointments.”

Information was shared between staff and the registered manager to ensure continuity of care. Care records included information from activities of daily living, cultural, religious and spiritual needs, important individuals, food preferences, eating and drinking and communication.

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

The provider assessed people’s communication needs and clearly documented accessible communication support in their care plan. For example, care plans clearly outlined the means of communication used by people using the service. This included the use of easy‑read formats, visual prompts and preferred‑language materials for people with a learning disability. This ensured people could understand information that affected them, participate meaningfully in decisions, and exercise choice and control in ways that reflected their individual needs and abilities.

Staff were observed patience when communicating with people.

Surveys were conducted with people using easy read format.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s communication needs. The provider had an Accessible Information Standard policy in place.

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.

We reviewed the meetings minutes involved people using the service which documented discussions and decisions made on topics including going on holidays, environment, and menu planning.

People and their families had opportunities to provide feedback and ideas about their care and support. We saw a sample of feedback surveys completed by people which showed people were satisfied with the care received. The survey was conducted using easy read format.

There was a complaints policy in place. People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint, although they had not needed to do so. A relative told us, “I have no trouble with the provider. They are very good at what they are doing.” Another relative said, “We were fully involved and informed. Our views were listened to.”

The registered manager maintained effective communication with the people and their relatives. Relatives we spoke with confirmed this with us. During the care reviews meetings, provider shared and discussed people’s health and well-being. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

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

The service worked alongside other agencies such as the local authority and health care professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met. People were supported to attend their annual health check-ups including medication reviews.

People were encouraged by the provider to access the community and community facilities. For example, people were supported to attend local community leisure centres as a part of planned care. A person said, “I go to museums.” Relatives we spoke with also confirmed their relatives had access to community-based activities.

People and their relatives told us the provider checked in with them and reviewed their needs on a regular basis, and if further support was needed, they would help them to access the necessary care. The provider responded to any change in people’s needs appropriately.

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 had a policy on equality and diversity which helped to guide practice in this area and equality, and diversity needs were included within people’s care plans.

The provider organised an annual summer party which was attended by people using the service and their relative.

Staff were trained to recognise and respond to diverse needs, promoting fairness and inclusivity in the delivery of care.

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 care plans we reviewed clearly outlined the goals people wanted to achieve. There were clear guidance and instructions for staff, including how to work with the person to achieve those goals. The care plans had information about people’s decisions to refuse treatment should they become unwell. People using the service had a document giving basic information about people’s health and communication needs which could be shared with other professionals to ensure people received holistic care.

The care plans included end-of-life care information. People’s wishes were respected and documented. Relatives were also involved in drafting these end-of-life care plans. This meant. carers and the healthcare professional have the right information when they need.