VanBeekDodge Complex Care

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 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 and relatives told us they were involved in developing and reviewing care plans. People’s relatives and healthcare professionals were very positive about the personalised support provided. One professional said, “Their person‑centred approach comes across strongly.”

Care plans clearly set out each person’s needs, preferred routines, and the level of support required with personal care. Care plans detailed what was important to each person, including their life history, cultural beliefs, and significant relationships.

Staff knew people well and responded promptly to minimise discomfort or distress. They understood individual preferences and allowed people to take the lead, including when routines or daily plans changed.

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.

The service had systems and processes to ensure care was coordinated and consistent. People were supported by familiar staff who understood their needs and reduced the need for them to repeat information. Staff communicated effectively with external healthcare professionals, enabling continuity of care when people’s needs changed. Records showed integrated working and timely updates. Professionals we spoke with told us they worked collaboratively to achieve good outcomes for people.

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

People and relatives told us they received the information they needed about their care. The provider understood the Accessible Information Standard, and we saw documentation, where required, had been put into an accessible format for people using the service. People’s care and support plans had been created in both standard and ‘easy read’ format.

Care plans documented people’s communication needs and any required adjustments to aid people’s understanding. For some people, this included extra support from staff or additional time to process information and focused on people’s strengths and weaknesses when in conversation.

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 service had a well-established culture of listening and learning from the views of people, relatives, and professionals. Preferences and feedback were incorporated promptly into care plans, helping people feel respected, heard, and in control of their lives. This showed care was personalised and specific to people.

People and their relatives were actively encouraged to express their opinions about the care and support they received, and their feedback was used to shape ongoing improvements. A relative said, “They change it [relating to aspect of care provision] every time his needs change and update me and talk things through. They are very innovative and will always look to try new things to better his quality of life.”

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

The service promoted fair and equal access to care. People from different backgrounds, cultures, and communities were supported without discrimination. The service management and staff understood diverse needs. The service ensured equitable access to healthcare and worked collaboratively with commissioners and other professionals to ensure people with complex or changing requirements continued to receive appropriate, high-quality care.

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 registered manager and staff provided support in line with best practice guidance such as Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. This meant people’s support was person-centred and reduced the potential for inequalities to exist.No concerns were raised during the assessment by people, relatives, staff or supporting healthcare professionals in relation to poor outcomes for people.

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.

Nobody at the service was receiving end of life care support. Due to the age and needs of people, the registered manager told us they had not engaged in conversations around individuals’ future wishes. They said they would approach this subject sensitively with people, if appropriate, and their relevant family members or representatives should this need arise in the future.