Care Specialist Services Ltd

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 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 to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had support plans in place for the staff to refer to. We looked at the support plans of both people, who the service supported. We found both support plans lacked essential information about people’s, histories, backgrounds, what makes them happy or sad and specific person-centred information. For example, if people preferred to use shower gel or soap for washing with. Although people were happy with the care provided, the support plans needed improvement to make them more person centred about each person. We spoke to the provider about this, and they told us it was difficult to sometimes find out this information.

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 happy with the care provision provided. Feedback gained, evidenced that the service worked flexibly to help meet people’s needs. A relative told us how supportive the staff and registered manager have been, over the past few years. This included increasing the care package hours when needed and then decreasing. People also said they received support from a consistent staff team, helping to ensure continuity of care and a stable care experience.

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

People were given information in a way they could understand. This considered their communication needs and any impairment. Some people wore hearing aids, and it was important these were worn when communicating with the staff. People and their relatives told us staff communicated with them well, they knew how they wished their care to be provided.

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 provided with information about how to raise complaints about the service. This information was kept at people’s homes, for them to refer to if needed. The people we spoke with confirmed they were happy with the care provided and aware of how to make a complaint. We reviewed the provider’s complaints policy. This contained information about how to make a complaint and how this would be handled. We spoke to the provider as the complaints policy needed updating. This advised people to contact the Care Quality Commission if they were unhappy, with how their complaint was handled. The policy contained the correct information about how to contact the ombudsman, who is the organisation responsible if someone was not happy on how their complaint was handled. The provider told us they had not received any complaints. The registered manager captured people’s feedback through, regular visits and telephone calls to people.

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

The registered manager told us both people they supported arranged their own medical appointments. People’s care records evidenced people had accessed support from other services when they needed to. Details of the services people accessed were held within their care and support plans. This included people’s GP surgery and contact details for significant others.

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 who received care from the service told us they received consistent care from the same carers. One person told us, “I prefer male carers, and I do get the same carer who visits, apart from when he has days off.” The registered manager told us they asked people’s preferences during the initial assessment. This was in relation to people’s preferences in respect of the gender of staff. This helped to ensure people received continuity of care, leading to better experiences and outcomes.

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 no one was receiving end of life care, The registered manager said this was something they would be able to support, if needed. Staff had received training in end-of-life care and were prepared to provide support when this aspect of care was required. The service had supported a person in the past with end-of-life care. Planning for the future focused on supporting people to maintain independence and supporting them, where there needs changed.