Nobilis Care Southampton

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 the provider met people’s needs. At our last inspection 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 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 said they were actively involved in planning and reviewing their care. They told us staff delivered personal care to a high standard, taking time to ensure it was provided safely and in a way they wished.

Care plans documented people’s preferred routines about their personal care. They included meaningful information around people’s life history, family relationships, cultural preferences, and what mattered most to each individual. Care plans outlined effective ways to encourage people’s engagement with their care, including personalised approaches. For example, where people preferred tasks to be completed in a specific way or responded positively to humour or particular topics of conversation. Staff were able to access and use this information to ensure care remained consistently person-centred, including when supporting people for the first time.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people. However, needed to make improvements to ensure consistency in staffing arrangements and care call timings.

People reported they had experienced inconsistencies in care call timings and staff allocation. They said visit times often varied day to day. This meant they were sometimes unsure who was coming or when, leading to waiting for visits or staff arriving earlier than expected. They told us this impacted how they planned their day.

The provider had recognised these concerns and taken steps to improve scheduling and reduce the impact of changes. Feedback from recent quality assurance surveys had highlighted these issues. In response, the registered manager wrote to people to set realistic expectations around care scheduling with an emphasis on prioritising time-critical visits. They also worked with senior staff to improve the processes for managing changes to care calls. We reviewed care records for a range of people and could see there were fluctuations in care call times, which in some cases were different from day to day. However, we found staffing allocation was broadly consistent and there were no issues identified around the completion of planned care tasks.

The provider had systems to monitor the length of care visits. This helped leaders assess whether current care arrangements met people’s needs. Where staff identified support levels required adjustment, the provider worked with commissioners to review and amend people’s care packages accordingly.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information to people about how their care visits were organised.

People said improvements were needed in how unplanned changes to care were communicated by the provider. They reported they were not always informed when visit times or staff changed at short notice, which left them uncertain about who would attend and when.

The registered manager had identified these concerns and acknowledged that communication systems required improvement. At the time of inspection, they were implementing measures to improve processes including communication. This included developing clearer protocols for informing people of changes to care visits, taking account of individual communication needs and sensitivities. These arrangements considered what was realistic within the fast-paced nature of the service, where multiple changes may be needed to cover care calls. This work was ongoing at the time of inspection.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. The provider involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had effective systems to support people and relatives to raise concerns and share feedback. People said the provider was responsive, and they felt comfortable raising issues. They confirmed they were given information about how to provide feedback when care was first arranged. A clear complaints policy outlined how concerns would be managed.

People’s feedback was gathered through care reviews, telephone contact, and quality assurance surveys. Feedback from recent quality assurance surveys reflected overall positive feedback about the quality of care.

Systems were in place to record, monitor, and review complaints, with regular analysis by senior staff to identify trends and drive improvement. Complaint levels were low, and records showed concerns were handled appropriately and in a timely way. For example, where a person was dissatisfied with visit times, the registered manager adjusted their schedule to plan in more suitable care call times. The provider also responded to feedback about staff preferences. The provider listened to people’s feedback around the choice of staff. Where people raised issues about staff, they worked to explore reasons and seek possible resolutions. Where resolution was not possible, the provider sourced alternative staff and advised them around the timescale within changes could be made.

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

Staff treated people equitably and there were no concerns regarding discrimination. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and demonstrated a strong commitment to respecting people’s preferences and values. They worked with people to help ensure they could access services such as GP’s, dentists and wider healthcare support. One staff member told us, “I respect all clients right to live how they choose too. I just fit into what they need because that’s my job. I am there to help them.”

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’s care plans included details around people’s protected characteristics and how to ensure care was not a barrier to people receiving fair treatment. For example, by helping to ensure support was culturally sensitive and reflective of people’s customs and beliefs.

Nobody at the service was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection. However, during the assessment process, the provider explored people’s future wishes and whether they had made any advanced decisions about their care. This helped to ensure their wishes would be respected in the event their needs changed.