East Bristol Reablement Service

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 make sure 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 toany relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not fully reflect people’s needs. There was limited information about risks to people, cultural, religious and communication needs, and people’s preferences. A staff member said, “You need to know more the character of the person and I suppose they have the basics in there, but as carers we go in wondering what this person will be like. Just respect what their religious needs are, we don’t have that information, it is not in the care plans.” We received mixed feedback about the effectiveness of care plans in place. A staff member said, “I always keep to the care plan.” Another staff member said, “On our phones we get their care plans, on our phones it gives you all their details.” A family member said, “When he first came out of hospital, there was a care plan in place for three months. I’m not sure how much of that has changed.” A person said, “I’ve not seen a copy of the care plan, no.”

Staff demonstrated that, despite limited information they always strived to deliver care in a person centred way and in the way people preferred. Staff gave examples of how they ensured they asked people how they wanted to be supported. A staff member said, “I had a person who wanted Weetabix which I helped them with. I asked if they wanted hot or cold milk and how they wanted their tea. I will give them choices.” Staff were respectful and mindful of people’s culture and religion. For example, the way people preferred to prepare and eat meals or people’s preferences for washing routines. A staff member said, “Going in and helping them get back on their feet, finding different ways of dressing and getting equipment in for them, it is really positive.”

People’s preferences of carers were respected. For example, around the gender of carer delivering support. A staff member said, “Someone may not want a male carer.” One person told us they had not got on with 1 carer. They said, “I called the office and told them not to send them again.” This was respected and alternative carers provided.

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 area the provider covered was diverse in the needs of people. Training and support ensured staff understood and were responsive to this community. The service supported people for a short period of time with specific reablement goals. The service worked with other professionals during and at the end of their service provision to ensure people had support to meet any ongoing care needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.Information was provided to people in a variety of accessible formats. For example, easy read, braille or other languages. A staff member said, “We do have flash cards for different speaking communities.” People received a service user guide at their first visit and staff went through this with them. This explained clearly the short-term service they would receive, what the service would deliver and the contract involved.

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 and their relatives had access to the complaints procedure, which was also in an accessible format. An accessible form supported people to be able to submit a complaint if needed. The service had not received any formal complaints in the previous 12 months. A recent concern had been managed, however this was not documented. We highlighted to the provider to review how concerns were monitored. People told us they had not needed to raise any concerns. A person said, “No complaints.”

The service had received a variety of compliments. These were shared with the staff team regularly during team meetings. Recent compliments said, “I thought it was a good service,” and “Each carer provided and supported me with finding new ways and adapting to options for caring, washing and dressing myself.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service supported people when they needed it for a short period of time to enable their independence. Staff were experienced at adapting to people’s needs and reasonable adjustments were made.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff received training in areas such equality, diversity and inclusion, modern slavery and dementia awareness and were aware of people’s protected characteristics. Staff were aware and conscious of how to deliver care whilst respecting people’s culture and religion. A staff member said, “Some cultures can wash in different ways.” They gave examples of washing under running water or dousing in water. Leaders ensured people had equity of opportunities and were supported to share their views.

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. The service did not support people with end-of-life care. Staff still received training in end-of-life care. The service worked with other people and other professionals to support people to reduce interventions and promote greater independence. The service signposted and made to referrals to other services where additional support for people was required.