Servoca London

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

The provider ensured induction programmes undertook core induction training. This included specialist training with medical equipment used to support people with their care needs.This training helped to equip care staff with the knowledge and understanding needed to meet each person’s individual needs and staff competency was assessed around safe use of specialist clinical devices.

There were systems and processes to support people to have the information that they needed to make informed decisions. People were involved as much as they could be in sharing their views and sharing their preferences about their care.

Care staff supported people to express their views using their preferred method of communication. This was recorded in people’s care records.
 

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.

Care staff liaised with other professionals to ensure that people's personal needs were identified and were then met. For example, people living with complex medical conditions had these closely monitored.

People's care plans included information about other health and, if necessary, social care professionals involved with their support.

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

No-one currently using the service required information to be provided in specific alternative language or presented in other formats in line with the Accessible information Standards.

The provider recognised the need to make information accessible for people with specific communication needs, they were continuing work to provide information in alternative formats such as large print, braille, or electronic communication (e.g. email).

Daily care records included communications that the care staff team had with people and their families and other health and social care partners. The provider shared information, confidentially, with only those who had a right to know. They had also provided CQC with information securely when requested to do so.

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.

Overall service performance was monitored through periodic internal audits, quality assurance reviews, and management meetings. During these, key performance indicators, incidents, and feedback was evaluated and considered in the ongoing service oversight procedures.

Surveys of people using the service, relatives, staff and others were issued annually. The procedures used to gather views, along with the views received from relative’s, other professionals and the care staff team demonstrated transparency. There were no barriers for people wishing to raise anything of concerns or positively comment about the service provided. There was a detailed complaints policy which told people what they should expect to happen if they wished to complain. This set out how complaints could be made and what the provider would do to investigate and respond to complaints. The record of complaints and surveys demonstrated that the provider was open to receiving and acting on views about the service.

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

The provider understood the need to act where barriers were identified to enhance people’s experience and access to the care they required.

The care staff provided were, as far as possible, of the same cultural heritage and therefore very familiar with the cultural, linguistic and religious expectations of the people they were supporting.

The provider was not aware of any issues of concern about there being current barriers for people accessing and receiving the care that they needed.

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 policies and procedures outlining the positive action they take to acknowledge and support equality and diversity.

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 were asked about their preferences for end-of-life care, if people decided to express a preference this was recorded on their care plan. People were asked about their lifestyle and how care staff could support them to maintain this, which was recorded and support was provided to make this happen.