Schreiber Care UK - London

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.

People received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. A person told us, “Staff do everything I need. Washing, cleaning, shopping, helping me. They are really good.”

The registered manager had developed clear care plans which outlined people’s needs and how to meet these. People were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. These were regularly updated.

The provider ensured people received continuity of care. They liaised with different healthcare professionals to make referrals, request additional support and to obtain guidance. Staff did not need to escort any one to healthcare appointments or to community activities at the time of our assessment. However, the provider had processes to assess the risks relating to this type of support if it was needed in the future. The staff carried out tasks in the community on behalf of people. These included collecting shopping and medicines. People and their relatives were happy with this support.

People were provided with information. People were given copies of their care plans and key other information about the service. The registered manager explained how they had read the care plan to a person with a sight impairment to ensure they understood this.

The registered manager was qualified to train staff in a type of communication aid which used pictures to help people with communication difficulties. Staff had used this in the past with people they supported. This ensured people had better information to make informed choices about their care.

The provider gave people opportunities to share their views. People completed surveys about their experience. Completed surveys were positive and showed people were happy. The registered manager visited people and carried out reviews of their care.

People using the service and their relatives were happy speaking with the registered manager or staff. They told us they knew how to make a complaint. Their comments included, “I can contact the manager if I need” and “I know how to raise a complaint if I needed.”

Staff supported people to access services and support. They had arranged for a person with sight impairment to receive talking books. The person told us staff always helped them by turning the books on. The registered manager had arranged for different professionals to visit people and assess their needs for equipment to improve their quality of life. They had also arranged for extra visits to a person from the community nurse when they identified a potential risk. A relative explained how the provider had supported the person to access a range of services and how this was important because the relative did not live close by.

People had equity in experience and outcomes. Staff undertook training about equality and human rights. Care plans included information about people’s personal history, interests and goals.

Staff worked with people and their relatives to identify any future plans they had. They helped people to gain new skills and independence when they were able to.