RSBC Care 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 that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were supported by a provider and staff who were person centred and delivered their care in the way they wanted. Staff gave people choice and were flexible in responding to what people needed and ensured their preferences were met. One person told us, “They come and give me a shower if I want one or a good body wash, dress me. Go and get my clothes out of the wardrobe if I ask. They always let me pick my clothes if I want to.”

Where people’s needs changed, the provider encouraged staff to be flexible and make reasonable adjustments to care to ensure people still received care in the way that best suited them.

People’s care was regularly reviewed to ensure any changes could be made to their care plans and care delivered remained centred around their own individual needs. People and relatives were informally involved with care plan reviews but this was not always documented formally.

Staff completed thorough daily logs which showed a high level of personalised care being provided to meet people’s physical and emotional needs. For example, where relatives told us one person had anxieties about a specific aspect of their life, staff had documented on multiple occasions where they had spoken to them about it to reassure 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.

People received care from services they needed, and this care was delivered in a way that considered their individual needs and preferences. The provider informally liaised with other services when this was needed to meet people’s needs.

People received continuity of care as the provider was flexible and motivated to make changes that benefited people’s positive outcomes and adapted people’s care dependent upon professional input. However, the provider did not always seek formal clarification from professionals when required.

People’s care and treatment was responsive and delivered in a way that met their assessed needs.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff raised concerns about safety but the provider did not always formally investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Risks relating to the governance of the service were not always understood and were overlooked which had the potential to place people at risk of harm.

Incidents, accidents and complaints were not always documented which meant the provider could not be assured they had identified patterns, learnt where things went wrong and taken appropriate action to mitigate risk to people. For example, people told us there had been isolated missed calls they had reported but there was no record of this.

People and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident they would not be treated negatively if they did so. One relative told us they had raised a concern about a member of staff which may have been a conflict of interests with the directors, but this was treated professionally and responded to immediately.

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 were supported by staff to make decisions and have choice in their care. One staff member told us they involved people in their care, “by simply asking them what clothes they want to wear and what food they prefer to eat. Basically, by asking them directly what they want.”

People and relatives told us staff encouraged them to make their own decisions and made changes to their care when they asked. They were also confident any concerns they raised would be explored and addressed with no repercussion.

People and relatives were encouraged to provide feedback in questionnaires that were regularly sent to them. People and relatives had provided positive feedback regarding the quality of care received.

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

The provider supported people to access care in a way that suited them at a time that suited them. One person/relative told us about when the provider had been flexible with call times and returned later to provide care when they had visitors.

The provider administered medicines to one person at flexible locations depending on where they were spending their time to ensure they received their medicines as prescribed.

Relatives told us they were always able to contact the provider and the office staff were readily available if they needed them.

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 felt they were listened to, and any inequalities were acted on to improve care. People felt empowered by staff to give their views and staff helped them to understand and promote their rights.

Leaders and staff were aware of circumstances that could be discriminatory and disadvantage people and were flexible in the way they delivered care to try to reduce these inequalities.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff raised concerns about safety but the provider did not always formally investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Risks relating to the governance of the service were not always understood and were overlooked which had the potential to place people at risk of harm.

Incidents, accidents and complaints were not always documented which meant the provider could not be assured they had identified patterns, learnt where things went wrong and taken appropriate action to mitigate risk to people. For example, people told us there had been isolated missed calls they had reported but there was no record of this.

People and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident they would not be treated negatively if they did so. One relative told us they had raised a concern about a member of staff which may have been a conflict of interests with the directors, but this was treated professionally and responded to immediately.