Bliss Care And Training Ltd - Barnet

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 were clear with us they were happy with the care they received as individuals. Everyone said they saw staff at their agreed times, they saw staff who they were familiar with, some had formed closer connections than others. But everyone we spoke with was happy with how staff treated them. Some staff were chatty and would sit and have a cup of tea with people if they finished early, other people were happy for staff to go when they had completed everything they needed them to. As a person’s relative told us, “They [staff] even check the cats. Staff noticed that when the cats are jumping on mum they are scratching her so they advised that we get the cats nails cut.” Another person’s relative told us, “The [member of staff] speaks Somali, so she can communicate with mum. The carer has cultural understanding.”

The provider had retained this person centred culture and had systems to check this was happening in practice.

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 provider had responded to people’s individual needs to ensure staff were complimenting the care of other health professionals. Especially when people had pressure sores, wore catheters, and used specialised equipment to eat and drink.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were given information about how to make a complaint and what they can do if staff had not arrived on time in writing and often verbally during their first assessment with Bliss Homecare office staff. People also had a copy of their care plans and risk assessments in a folder. Most people said they were aware of the paperwork but not particularly interested in it. Further work was needed to ensure the paperwork produced was accessible to each individual.

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.

People were asked their views of the care they received during their review and when staff had ‘spot checks’. People said they felt confident raising any ‘niggles’ with the member of staff themselves or they would ask their regular member of staff to communicate this to the office. Most said they had not spoken with the office staff, but they would if they thought it was necessary.

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

The provider was aware which people received input from community health professionals such as district nurses. They were also aware of those who had more specialist health needs and equipment. Staff were mindful to call the office to seek their input if there were issues with this health advice and when they felt further social services support was needed. The provider and management team talked to us about these situations.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider had advocated for people when staff said they needed more time or their needs had changed. It was not clear in people’s records who were most at risk if the provider had shared these risks with other agencies. Staff were also not knowledgeable or mindful of the risks which people faced. They did not have an understanding of discrimination and what this could look like for the people they visited. Due to this there was a risk some people may experience an inequality of outcome.

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.

Staff were now considering this aspect of people’s lives when they were being assessed and this was being reviewed when people had been with the service for a while