CareTech Community Services Limited - 82 Chaucer Road

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 inspection we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained Requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of a legal regulation in relation to person-centred care at this inspection. People’s care plans were not always personalised and in some cases were not updated to be in line with their current support needs. People were not being supported to effectively feed back about their care and support. Staff were not trained in supporting people with different communication need such as using signing. It was unclear how people were being supported to discuss and follow their known interests and past times. However, staff knew people as individuals and knew what their preferences were. People were supported to access other services if they needed support from other professionals.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to relevant changes in people's needs. Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated. For example, one person had new mobility and skincare needs that were not recorded, and another required additional support with their leg health and emotional distress that also was not updated in their care plans and risk assessments. However, staff knew people as individuals and their preferences, and some care plan details supported daily routines and independence. The registered manager acted to update care plans following the inspection findings. One person said, "The staff are fine. They are nice." A relative told us, "[Family member] is so much happier than they have ever been. They do not get angry anymore because they know the staff are there to support them."

The registered manager and staff team understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staffing levels at the service were stable and staff had worked at the service for an extended period of time, meaning people had good continuity of care. Staff supported people to access health appointments and services in the community. One relative said, ‘‘[Family member] had a lot of health problems a while back. Staff were back and forth to appointments and stayed with them in their own time. They advocated for them and without this I do not think they would have got better.’’ Some people attended local day opportunities and this meant a lot to them. One person said, ‘‘I go out whenever I want to.’’ Another person was visibly happy to be supported to go out of the service by the staff team.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff were not trained in supporting people who used different methods of communication such as using signs or objects to make their needs know. We observed 1 person signing for something to eat and staff did not understand what this sign meant. This limited the ability for people to receive and understand information. Staff told us they would benefit from this training, but it had not been offered to them. The registered manager told us they would organise this training for the staff team as a result of our findings.

People’s care plans contained information about how they communicated their needs and had photos of the signs people used. Information such as care plans and policies were available for people in an easy read format. We observed staff speaking with people and people responded positively showing they understood what was being communicated to them. One relative said, ‘‘[Staff] have got to know [family member] well and know what they are trying to say.’’

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People were supported to have meetings to discuss their care and support with staff. However, if people were unable to verbally feedback or write things down, then staff recorded they were non-verbal on meeting minutes. No further support was given to help people feedback in other ways. Staff also filled in surveys for people if they were unable to understand the surveys. This meant people’s thoughts or feedback about then service may not have been their own as staff filled in the surveys on their behalf. There was no evidence other ways of collecting and recording people’s feedback had been tried to see if this would be better for people and enable them to feed back more effectively.

Staff listened to people throughout the day and involved them in all aspects of their support. Relatives were asked to feed back about the service regularly and were also involved in discussing their family members care plans and risk assessments. One relative said, ‘‘I see the care plan every year and am waiting for a review this year to discuss things.’’

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to go out into the community. They supported people to their appointments related to their health. Staff advocated for people confidently at appointments to help make sure they got the support they needed.

People were not being consistently supported to discuss their goals and outcomes they wanted to achieve. People were also not consistently supported to follow their know interests and past times. There was limited information in people’s care plans about any goals they wanted to work towards or how staff would support them with this. People spent a lot of time doing the same things, for example spending time in their bedrooms or communal areas at the service. However, it was unclear if other opportunities were being offered to people which may encourage them to try new things and have more positive experiences. The staff team told us they were working with people to identify new experiences they may want to try. The registered manager told us people needed a lot of prompting and motivation to have new experiences and they were working with the staff team to see how they could best support people with this. People and their relatives told us they were supported to follow their interests and have good experiences. One person said, ‘‘I am always having a good time here.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I know [staff] help [family member] do whatever they want to do. They are always busy.’’

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 supported people to put plans in place for the future and end of life care plans. These were detailed and contained information about how people wanted to be supported in the future in line with their preferences. Staff were passionate about people living at the service their whole lives and knew how important this was for people. One relative told us, ‘‘[Family member] has a home for life.’’