Faye Hammond Consultancy 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 service 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 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 service 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.

The provider delivered care that was tailored to each person’s needs and preferences. People’s care plans were person-centred, reflecting people’s independence and support needs. The provider recognised that delivering high-quality care relied on knowing each person well and providing genuinely personalised support.

The service 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 maintained effective partnerships with health and social care professionals, helping to ensure continuity of care. Detailed records of meetings and appointments were documented. Professionals’ feedback was positive and highlighted effective working relationships with the provider and people being supported by staff who knew them well.

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

Clear communication plans supported staff to understand how best to engage with people. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS isa law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand. Information was made available in formats that met people’s needs, such easy-to-read guides. Relatives told us they were well informed and involved.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives were given regular opportunities to share feedback through meetings and surveys. Relatives were actively involved in care planning, helping to ensure care remained person-centred. Information was used to shape the service and make changes. A professional told us, “I found them to be excellent advocates for [person].”

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

Relatives told us people were supported to access support from relevant professionals. The provider had an on-call service which enabled people to access care and support outside of usual working hours.

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.

Relatives were positive about the care and support people were receiving. People were supported to engage in meaningful activities at home and in the community. A professional said, “When working with this provider I found that they did follow my professional advice and challenged me appropriately, offering alternative solutions. It was clear that they knew the person very well. They promoted [person’s] rights and were able to anticipate their needs appropriately.”

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.

People’s decisions about emergency treatment were recorded. An end of life policy was in place. However, people were not always given the opportunity to plan in advance, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. At the time of this inspection, the provider was not supporting anyone who was receiving care during the final stages of life.