Fission Care 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 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.

The provider ensured that from the beginning of their induction programmes that care staff undertook training in both disability awareness and learning disability support. We noted that at the time of our assessment no-one using the service was living with a learning disability. This training helped to equip care staff with the knowledge and understanding needed to meet each person’s unique needs.

There were systems and processes to support people to have the information that they needed to make informed decisions. People were encouraged to be involved as much as they could be in sharing their views and sharing their preferences about their care.

Care staff supported people to express their views using their preferred method of communication. This was recorded in people’s care records.
 

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.

Care staff liaised with other professionals to ensure that people's personal needs were identified and were then met. For example, one person was living in a care home, it was reported to us by a commissioning authority that no concerns about how this was achieved in cooperation other services. If people were living with known medical conditions these were known about and were monitored.

People's care plans included information about other health and, if necessary, social care professionals involved with their support.

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

No-one currently using the service required information to be provided in specific alternative language or presented in other formats in line with the Accessible information Standards.

The provider told us that for individuals with specific communication needs, they were able to provide information in alternative formats such as large print, braille, or electronic communication (e.g. email). They also told us that they were registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), concerning the handling personal data responsibly and in line with data protection regulations.

We viewed examples of communication that the provider had with people and their families, health and social care partners as well as from staff feedback. This demonstrated that the provider shared information, confidentially, with only those who had a right to know. They had also provided CQC with information securely when requested to do so.

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.

Overall service performance is monitored through periodic internal audits, quality assurance reviews, and management meetings. During these, key performance indicators, incidents, and feedback was evaluated and considered in the ongoing service improvement plan.

Surveys of people using the service, relatives, staff and others were issued annually. The procedures used to gather views, along with the views received from relative’s, other professionals and the care staff team demonstrated that there were no barriers put in the way of people wishing to raise anything of concern. There was a detailed complaints policy which told people what they should expect to happen if the wished to complain. This set out how complaints could be made and what the provider would do to investigate and respond to complaints. The record of complaints and surveys also demonstrated that the provider was open to receiving and acting on views about the service.

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

The provider understood the need to act where barriers were identified to enhance people’s experience and access to the care they required.

The care staff provided were, as far as possible, of the same cultural heritage and therefore very familiar with the cultural, linguistic and religious expectations of the people they were supporting.

No concerns were raised by relatives, care staff or the manager about there being current barriers for people accessing and receiving the care that they needed.

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.

The provider had policies and procedures outlining the positive action they take to acknowledge and support equality and diversity.

The care staff provided were, as far as possible, of the same cultural heritage and therefore very familiar with the cultural, linguistic and religious expectations of the people they were supporting

We have made comment about this in other areas of the report and the provider and care staff team put people first in the way the service cared about them.

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.

One person using the service was living in a care home and their care was co-ordinated between the care home and care staff from Fission care who provided additional support. People were asked about their preferences for end-of-life care and if people decided to express a preference this was recorded on their care plan.