Lambeth Chinese Community Association

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

This service scored 64 (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.Some people told us they were unsure of their level of involvement in their care plan. However, some people and their relatives told us they were involved in decisions around peoples care and treatment.Some care plans did not document people’s characteristics protected under the Equality Act. Staff had not received training in relation to these care needs. This left people at risk of being supported by staff not fully informed on how to deliver person centred care to them.

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 service worked with other agencies in the community to ensure people were supported appropriately with their health and care needs.The registered manager ensured people were supported by staff able to speak the same language and understand their social and religious needs and preferences. Times of meals would be adjusted to suit the needs of people rather than a fixed corporate time being in place.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.At the time of the inspection, the registered manager told us all the people using the service did not speak English. Information to be shared was delivered to people via phone call, or face to face. Information was not shared in writing as the management team did not think people would be able to read or understand this. However, we saw no assessments to where this finding had been concluded.

Since 2016 onwards, all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

The service supported people who required additional sensory support. However, there was no accessible information standard policy in place. Staff had not received training in relation to communication needs. This left people at risk of being supported by staff not trained to access information through effective communication.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.People had a copy of the services complaints policy in their homes. People told us they would inform a member of staff, or a social support worker if they wanted to make a complaint. People and staff told us if they raised a concern with the registered manager, it would be taken seriously and acted upon appropriately. Staff told us they were able to give feedback and speak up about concerns about the service at staff meetings. The service had a phone group call where messages were shared, and the registered manager could pick up and act upon concerns raised.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.People told us the registered manager supported them to arrange health care appointments as required. People told us staff would always attend care visits, and staff always stay for the full time of the visit. The registered manager told us people were able to request changes to their visits as required, and they will accommodate changes wherever they can. The registered manager would discuss changes whether they be temporary or permanent, and put measures into place to ensure peoples care needs were adapted accordingly.

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.While this was not documented, people’s feedback told us they were confident their views were considered and implemented if possible. They had no concerns about discrimination within the service. Staff treated them with respect in relation to their backgrounds and cultural needs.

People were not always 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. Care plans did have a section for end-of-life details to be documented, but we found these were not completed. This left people at risk of staff not knowing how to support people in line with their wishes in relation to advanced care and support needs. We fed this back to the provider to review.