Coquet Trust

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 exceeded expectations in their approach to making sure people were at the centre of their care People and their relatives were involved in regular reviews and decision-making. For example, support plans included personal goals such as attending holidays, concerts, and community activities, and these were achieved with staff support. People told us they felt listened to and involved in planning their care. One person said they were “happy and settled” and enjoyed independence and choice in daily routines. Staff responded proactively when people’s needs changed. Positive Behaviour Support plans were embedded and used consistently to promote independence and reduce distress.

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 was delivered in line with assessed needs. People usually received support from familiar staff. However, some relatives told us staff turnover and use of agency staff could be improved. The provider told us there was a stable staff team and low agency usage. Agency usage was usually bank staff the provider employed, who were familiar with people and the services they worked in. Care plans reflected collaboration with families and external professionals, and people were supported to access healthcare appointments and community activities.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was shared in ways that met people’s needs. Care plans included communication profiles, and staff used easy-read materials and visual supports where required. Most relatives confirmed they were kept informed about changes and incidents.

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 and families had opportunities to give feedback through meetings, surveys, and informal discussions. Team meeting records showed actions were taken in response to suggestions. Complaints were logged and investigated, with lessons learned shared across teams. Most relatives felt listened to, though some reported occasional gaps in communication.

People could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. Care plans detailed reasonable adjustments bespoke to each person’s needs, such as specialist equipment required. Emergency protocols were in place, and staff understood out-of-hours arrangements.

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 were treated fairly and with respect. Staff understood equality and human rights principles, and care plans reflected consideration of protected characteristics. Positive outcomes were achieved, including increased independence and confidence.

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. Care plans contained information about future planning, including end-of-life wishes and advanced decisions.