Chasfab Options Limited

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 service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s 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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Relatives told us they were involved in decisions around people’s care. However, 1 relative told us, they did not have a choice in choice of carer who provided support due to time restraints, therefore the choice was made for them. This indicated that neither the person or there relative had a choice in the care received in relation to this. Some care plans did not document people’s characteristics protected under the Equality Act. This left people at risk of being supported by staff who were not fully informed on how to deliver person centred care to them.

The provider worked well with schools and hospitals to ensure people’s continuing and complex care support needs were met. Staff supported people to attend school and college during the day. Professionals told us they were very happy working with staff from Chasfab Options Limited and told us they had good communication with staff and the registered manager. The provider worked well with commissioners to ensure continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. While some care plans did mention people required additional support with communication, the types of format people might have required information to be presented in was not documented. Staff had not received training in relation to communication needs. This left people at risk of being supported by staff not fully trained to support them to access information through effective communication.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. At the time of the inspection there were no recorded complaints from people or their relatives. Although relatives told us they were able to contact the registered manager to raise a concern if required, at the time of the inspection, there was no formal, standardised facility for people to give written and/or anonymous feedback on care if they felt the need to do this. The provider informed us they were rolling out a service where people would be able to give feedback anonymously at any time, and this would be reviewed regularly.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people as and when it was required. Relatives of people said staff always remained on duty for the entire time allocated. Relatives told us they were happy with the care that was provided. Support was offered in a timely manner. If staff were unable to attend a visit, people would be notified in advance, and they would be notified of which member of staff would be completing the care visit. Staff told us they would contact the management team, or the registered manager in the case of an emergency. At the time of the assessment, a new care coordinator had been employed to add robustness to this facility for staff and people. Health professionals told us they had no concerns with contacting the provider when required.

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. Relatives of people told us they did not feel discriminated against, and if they had any concerns, they would be comfortable to contact the registered manager to discuss these. The provider told us staff had received training in equality and diversity, and staff told us they understood how to treat people equally.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, such as transitioning to other services or end of life care. At the time of the inspection, no one was in the process of transitioning to another service. The service had an advanced care policy in place. However, at the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting anyone with end-of-life support needs.