Favour Health Ltd - Cornwall

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 newly registered 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.

Care plans included sufficient detailed guidance to enable staff to safely meet people’s individual needs. This guidance had been regularly reviewed and updated when people’s needs or interests changed. Staff told us, “The care plans have enough information”, “Everything we need to know is in the care plan” and “Every client gets the support they need”. Professionals said, “Favour have been very robust in creating a support plan that is extremely person centred and a positive behaviour support plan that has seen a significant reduction in behaviours and emotional dysregulation”.

The service used a digital care planning system which staff accessed via a password secured handset in each setting. One staff member said, “There is a staff phone in every setting, so we don’t have to use our own phones”.

Accurate records were maintained detailing the care and support provided. These records demonstrated care had been delivered as planned.

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 were encouraged to access the community regularly and participate in tasks and chores necessary to maintain their homes. People chose when to go out, where to go and what to do. Staff respected people’s decisions while encouraging regular exercise.

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

Staff communicated effectively with the people they supported and used tools and aids appropriately to aid people’s understanding and facilitate decision making.

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 systems to gather feedback from people using the service, their relative and involved professionals. There were processes to ensure any complaints or concerns were investigated and compliments were recorded and shared with staff involved.

Each week the service securely shared details with relatives of what people had done and photos of them participating in activities. This helped relatives, who were not always able to visit regularly, to keep up to date with how people were choosing to spend their time.

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

The provider ensured there were sufficient staff available to enable people to access the community and engage with their hobbies and interests. Staff supported people effectively and respected their decisions and choices.

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 were supported and encouraged to access the community regularly. Records showed, and we observed, people regularly engaged in a variety of activities within their homes and the local community. Staff said, “Everyone can go out if they want to”, “We’ve just been to [a nearby town]” and “Every day [Person’s name] goes for 2 or 3 walks depending on where they want to go”.

When people made unwise decisions, risk were explained and staff provided gentle encouragement designed to minimise the impact of these choices on people’s wellbeing. Staff recognised that previous experiences impacted on people’s decision making and had supported people to gain the confidence necessary to do things independently. People’s skills were recognised and valued by the staff team.

Professionals recognised the service had worked effectively with people to reduce self-imposed restrictions to their freedoms. Professionals’ comments included, “They have communicated and co-worked with other professional agencies to ensure a structured, safe and encouraging environment for [Person’s name] to thrive [in] whilst seeking opportunities to make their support less restrictive”.

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.

At the time of the assessment the service was not providing support to people at the end of their lives. The service had systems available to document people’s preferences in relation to end of life care and was able to provide this support when required.