Indiana Health Care Services

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 peoples' needs.

The service was flexible and would make changes and respond quickly to requests for changes to care and visits.

The service tried hard to respect peoples' personal preferences. People and relatives told us they had been offered preferences of male or female staff to provide support, although this could not always be achieved by the service.

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.

Staff understood peoples' cultural needs which they served. For example, providing food which people were accustomed to. Staff and people learned about their cultures from one another and said they enjoyed this experience.

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

The service had a service guide which was reviewed and updated annually. People reported they had information about the service. The service provided information in other languages and formats as necessary.

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 service had a complaints investigation procedure, and this had been used effectively when necessary. People and their relatives told us they knew about the complaints procedure and how to access it should they need to do so. The 6 monthly survey system showed positive feedback about the quality of the service.

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

Discussions with the provider and office management team showed they understood how to access specialist health or social care support. For example, specialist support was accessed to assess a person’s need for an application for a community Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard.

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 received training in equality, diversity and human rights. People were supported to have a good quality of life by the service.

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 supported people to make plans about their future care. Should end of life care be required this was provided in line with the person’s wishes.