Bramble Home Care LTD - Cinderford

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

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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, however they did respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff did not always use person centred language when referring to people in daily records. People were described as needing support in ways which were not in keeping with their individuality and referred to their physical needs without considering their emotional well-being. Equipment for people was described using words which were inappropriate or unclear. For example, one record said, ‘had a lovely chat’, but did not describe what the conversation was about. Details about how people’s groceries were bought and whether they needed support with oral care was not included in people’s care plans.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity, however there were some shortfalls identified.

People had contacted the service about concerns around call times. Some people reported having shorter calls than they were paying for. The manager told us they were working to make improvements in this area. The manager told us, “I've heard calls where staff maybe haven't been staying the length of time, they are due to. I say to staff you need to stay the full length of the call and if all their jobs are done, they can spend time with the person.” The manager had only been in post for a few weeks at the time of the inspection but had added this concern to the service’s improvement plan to action.

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

The manager understood their obligations for working in line with the Accessible Information Standard. This isa mandatory legal requirement for all NHS and publicly funded adult social care services in England to ensure disabled people or those with sensory loss receive accessible communication support.The manager told us they ensure this is put into practice. The manager told us, “If a family member requested a care plan, we would just need to make sure the family is permitted by the person to share this information. We do care plan reviews with family members where possible.” We saw evidence of people being provided with information in appropriate formats including verbally and in writing.

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.

We saw evidence the manager learned from concerns or complaints raised by people and relatives. The manager told us, “We've had some minor complaints about staff not being on time. There are always the issues with roadworks.” Complaints were investigated and appropriate escalation was made to senior managers when needed. When a staff member made a complaint about another staff member, this was logged as a complaint and was investigated per the provider’s complaints policy.

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

The provider had emergency protocols and information available around what people and staff should do in an emergency or out of hours. There was an on-call rota staff had access to when managers were not in the office. Staff were given appropriate training during induction into how to use the on-call interface, expectations of how to handover important information, how and when to urgently escalate an issue and how to record information.

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.

People did not have any concerns about discrimination within the service and told us staff treated people equally. One person told us, “There’s never been any discrimination. They’re all very good” and “There have never been any issues, everyone is so professional. My dignity is always protected.” Staff had regular training on 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.

The service was not supporting anyone who required end-of-life care at the time of this assessment. Care plans and reviews evidenced people’s future was considered and people and relatives were given the opportunity to discuss planning for the future including end-of-life care. However, we did notice where people lived with their spouse, this was not always evident in the care plans. Staff were instructed to contact next of kin but did not clearly state the next of kin was in the same residence.