Live Life Care Limited

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 people’s needs.

People told us they were happy with the care provided. They were involved in care planning with regular reviews to ensure information was kept up to date. Staff were passionate about providing person-centred care. The service had introduced an electronic care planning system, and care plans were person-centred.

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.

People told us they received good, consistent care from staff who understood their diverse health needs, choices, and wishes. Comments included, “[My relative] has a regular pool of 4 carers that they know and trust” and “There is a trusting relationship that has been built which will be beneficial if they require more care in the future.”

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

Staff understood people’s communication needs and supported people to express themselves. Staff gave us examples of how they adapted their communication style and gave people time to process information. Information could be provided in different formats, if 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.

The provider had a system for logging, recording, and investigating complaints. Where concerns had been raised these were addressed.

A relative said, “They explained the structure of the company from top to bottom and the lines of communication to reassure us that we could contact them at any time with any issues. Complaints process was discussed and everything was very transparent.”

The provider sought feedback through a range of methods and recorded compliments from people who had used the service. The service had recently carried out a survey and the responses were positive.

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

People were supported to access external healthcare professionals, where required. Staff knew how to contact health or social care professionals for support.

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 and the management team understood people had a right to be treated equally, fairly, and to receive care and support that met their specific needs. Training records showed staff had received equality and diversity training as part of their role to help them make sure people were not subjected to discriminatory behaviours and practices.

People received good outcomes. People’s care could be increased or decreased as required, dependent on people's current needs. Records evidenced people had been referred to appropriate services if further health and social care support was required.

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 wasn’t providing end of life care at the time of our assessment.

Staff had completed end of life training. The service had links with local hospices.