Zach's Care

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 inspection we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People’s care plans were not always detailed or person centred however the management team took action to resolve this immediately. Information was provided to people in ways they understood, and staff and the management team listened to people’s feedback. Staff treated people as individuals and knew their preferences, likes and dislikes.

This service scored 71 (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 received person centred care as they were not ensuring people’s care plans were detailed and up to date. Some care plans and risk assessments did not reflect people’s preference or how they needed to be supported with their specific health and support needs. The management team took action during our inspection to update care plans and make them more detailed. Staff and the management team knew people well and knew how they wanted to be supported. The management team met with people before they started using the service and regularly after that to help make sure support was tailored to their preferences. One person said, ‘‘[Staff] come when I want them to and when I want to get up or go to bed. They know what I like and are every respectful. I only have female carers and this is always respected. I have had no problems.’’

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 supported people to get in contact with health professionals if this was necessary. They supported people to access the local community if this was part of their support package, for example by supporting them to go shopping. People received the same staff for their care visits as far as possible to help promote continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff knew how to support people with different communication need such as using signs to help them feed back about the service. The management team made sure information such as policies and procedures were available in easy read and accessible formats. One relative told us, ‘‘We receive regular updates from the service and are kept up to date with how things are going.’’

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 management and staff team made sure people, and their relatives were given the opportunity to feed back about their care and support regularly. A member of staff who was office based visited people in their homes to collect their feedback as they found it more difficult to talk on the phone or feed back using paper surveys. The management team also rang people and their relatives to collect feedback. One person said, ‘‘A staff from the office comes and sits with me and goes through everything. They listen and take what I say seriously.’’ People and relatives also told us they were involved in discussions about their care plans and risk assessments.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to contact health professionals such as GP’s or the emergency services if this was necessary. They followed professionals’ advice to help make sure people were supports safely.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met the expectations of people and their relatives. People and family members were positive about their experiences using the service and of their support. One person said, ‘‘I have no complaints at all. [Staff] are brilliant, and I could not get by without them.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘The staff always have a joke with [family member] and make them happy. They are so much happier now.’’ Staff knew the importance of keeping people at the centre of their support and giving them the best experiences they could have. The management team discussed this with staff and shared people’s positive feedback with them.

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. People had been supported to put plans in place for the future and in many cases chose to be supported by staff in their own home for as long as possible. Staff knew who to contact for support if people needed help at the end of their life. One person said, ‘‘I have told staff I want to stay in my own home as long as possible and know they will help me do this as long as possible.’’