Care Options

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 had a personalised care plan which was recorded in the provider electronic care planning system. People and relatives also had access to this system so they were involved in their care and could make sure the information was accurate.

People and relatives said they were involved in people’s care and able to see care records. People said because staff did not rush and had time to talk with them, care provided was 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 had a continuity with their care as they were being supported by a small group of staff. The manager told us they tried to make sure people were visited by the same staff who had time to get to know people’s needs.

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

Information could be provided to people depending on people’s needs. Communication needs were recorded and if people needed aids such as glasses or hearing aids this was noted. People had a service user guide in their homes which contained key information about the service. This 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 complaints process and people said they knew how to complain if needed. People and relatives were involved in their care and asked for their views regularly. The service was responsive to people’s requests and able to make changes to planned care in response to feedback. One relative said, “We are really impressed with communication, it is very good, they are very responsive to our requests.”

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

The manager told us they worked in collaboration with people and families to make sure people had the care package appropriate for their needs. They said, “We talk about what they [person] want, what they want to achieve. It can be a short-term arrangement to help people get back on their feet.” This enabled people to move out from hospital in a timelier way. The manager said they were very flexible as a service and could increase or decrease hours depending on what people wanted and needed.

The service had an on-call system which meant people, relatives and staff had access to management out of hours.

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 used an electronic care planning and staff rota system. People and relatives had access to this system so they could see care records and when staff had logged into care visits. The manager said this gave relatives peace of mind being able to log into the system and see a care worker had arrived at the person’s property. This was particularly beneficial when people were not able to talk on the telephone or were being cared for in bed.

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.

There was no end-of-life care being provided at the time of this assessment, however, leaders said they had provided this type of care in the past many times. People’s needs were recorded and if people had made decisions for the future staff knew where relevant documents were stored.

Staff were provided with training on end-of-life care and had support from healthcare professionals. One member of staff said, “I have done this type of care before. We get training and very good support.”