Agathah 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans did not always reflect people’s personal preferences. For example, 1 person required assistance to use the shower, but there were no guidelines in place for staff to follow to ensure this task was carried out in line with the person’s preferences. Another person required support to regain confidence, but there was no evidence of discussions held with the person or guidance for staff on how this could be achieved.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. We saw evidence of email conversations between the registered manager and external professionals. However, people’s care plans did not always document changes to people’s care and support or provide guidance for staff on how to implement these changes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had access to information about the provider and their support package. The provider had General Data Protection Regulation (GDRP) and Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policies in place to evidence people had the right to be informed, access their information and the right to object. The policies ensured people’s information was stored and provided in line with current standards.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The provider had a complaints procedure in place which detailed what the provider would do if people raised concerns with them. The provider had not received any concerns, however, the registered manager could not evidence that people and their relatives had been given the opportunity to feedback about their experience of the service provided.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The registered manager told us they ensured equality in all care situations to reduce barriers to care, such as language, cultural needs and mobility. For example, procedures were in place to access interpreters for people whose first language was not English. All carers were provided with emergency contact numbers and clear guidance for out-of-hours situations.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. However, the provider could not always evidence how people’s care and support had been tailored to ensure this. Care plans did not always evidence how the service had considered people’s protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments as a result. Staff had not received training to help them understand the equality or diversity of the people they provided support to.

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 provider had an end-of-life policy in place to ensure people were supported sensitively and in line with their choices.