Collaborative Care Services Ltd

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 registered service. This key question has been rated good.

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

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. For example, we were told of a team barbecue which took place at a person’s house. Leaders told us this had been organised by staff. The manager said, “We told [person] we were going to have a party, he consented to that.” This was inappropriate as the person was not at the centre of the decision which infringed on their human rights. However, staff knew people and their preferences well. People’s care and support plans contained information about their likes and dislikes to support the delivery of person-centred 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 employed a small staff team who worked well together to ensure there was a continuity of care when staff were on holiday or unwell. The provider had a continuity plan which detailed arrangements in the event of emergencies.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Support plans were written in easy read format to support people’s understanding. Staff had received training and were able to explain how they met people’s communication needs. We saw evidence of other easy read documents and social stories to support people’s understanding of any important changes or life events. There was a pictorial activity timetable in place for one person to support their understanding of the daily activities.

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. The manager told us they actively sought feedback from people using the service, using an easy read feedback form where appropriate. The manager said, “One of the managers can also pass through and have lunch with [person]. We can ask the person, ‘Do staff support you well?’, and ask if [person] has any concerns.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access healthcare appointments when they needed it. The provider was working with the local authority to promote access into a college setting for a person. This promoted community engagement and integration.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and did not always tailor their care, support and treatment in response to this. Leaders were not fully aware of the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance and the REAL Tenancy test. This put people at risk of experiencing inequalities. We raised this with leaders, who told us they would complete further training in this area to ensure compliance. Staff were able to describe key parts of the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People had personalised goals which were regularly reviewed. Staff gave us examples of how they worked towards these. One staff member said, “We involve [person] in cooking, cleaning, laundry, and with activities in the community. Letting [person] do tasks on his own then intervene only when needed.”