Abacus Healthcare 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 the provider 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 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.

People told us their care reflected their needs and preferences. People’s care was organised in line with their commissioned or agreed hours.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual routines, preferences and abilities and described how they provided personalised and dignified support. This helped mitigate some gaps in care plan documentation, where information about how people preferred to receive personal care and what they could do independently was not always fully detailed. The registered manager was receptive to feedback and told us they would work to improve care plans to ensure they fully reflected people’s needs and preferences.

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.

People told us they received consistent care from regular staff who knew them well and generally visited at agreed times. They had not experienced any missed or significantly late visits. Occasional delays were due to exceptional circumstances, such as traffic or staff responding to an emergency during an earlier visit, and the provider took reasonable steps to minimise disruption.

The registered manager promoted continuity of care through small staff teams, matching staff to people’s needs and preferences, and responding to short-notice changes such as staff sickness. Senior staff were trained to provide care and could undertake visits when required. Staff were expected to inform the office and people if they were delayed, helping to minimise disruption and keep people informed.

Care rotas were planned in advance, taking account of people’s locations and appropriate travel times. Staff accessed their rotas electronically and were alerted to changes. Care records showed good consistency in visit times, duration and staff allocation. The provider was also flexible in adjusting visit times and arrangements when people’s circumstances or needs changed, helping ensure care remained responsive to individual needs and preferences.

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

People’s communication needs were documented within their care plans, including any adjustments required to help them understand and communicate information about their care. For example, where people had a sensory impairment, care plans identified any additional support needed to enable effective communication.

The registered manager gave examples of how information could be adapted to suit individual requirements. This helped ensure people received information in a way they could understand and supported their involvement in decisions about their care.

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

The provider had a complaints procedure which explained how people could raise concerns with someone other than the registered manager and included external contacts, such as the local authority and CQC.

The registered manager used formal and informal reviews and quality assurance questionnaires to gather feedback about the service. The most recent survey showed people were positive about staff and the quality of care they received, which was consistent with the compliments received by the provider. Regular contact with people also helped the registered manager identify and respond to concerns promptly and make changes to care arrangements where needed.

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

People told us they had not experienced discrimination in accessing or receiving support, or in the outcomes they achieved. Staff had received equality and diversity training and told us they valued people’s uniqueness and individuality. People’s care plans included information about their protected characteristics and any adjustments needed to ensure they received fair and equitable support.

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.

Leaders understood the importance of responding promptly when people’s care or level of support needed to change. They recognised that delays could negatively affect people’s outcomes. For example, when people needed temporary changes to their care visits, these were arranged promptly in response to their changing needs. This helped ensure people continued to receive appropriate support.

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.

Nobody using the service was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection. However, senior staff had engaged with people to discuss their preferences and wishes for future care and support. This included conversations about how they would like their care needs to be met should their health deteriorate or their circumstances change.