Relate Care Solutions 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 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's care plans were centred around their needs. For example, people’s health conditions were described in their care plans and staff had the necessary knowledge to know when to seek assistance if people’s conditions deteriorated.

Staff completed daily notes which we reviewed. These showed staff followed people’s care plans.

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 and support had been well coordinated between staff, relatives and or other services supporting people. This ensured any changes in needs were met appropriately.

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

The service ensured people had access to the information they needed in a way they could understand it.

A relative told us, “I have a copy of the care plan, and the company adapt it on an ongoing basis”.

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.

There were policies and procedures in place for people and relatives to provide feedback or make a complaint.

The registered manager told us no complaints had been received but they explained the process they would follow and how any lessons learnt would be shared with the staff team if any complaints were received.

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

The provider considered accessibility when planning services and made reasonable adjustments to meet the person’s needs, ensuring they could participate fully in their care and daily life. 

People's care records indicated they had access to care and support they needed and referrals were made for treatment when they needed it.

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.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity awareness. This was supported by the provider’s policies and procedures in this area.

In our conversations with relatives, staff and the registered manager, and review of information, we did not find evidence of concerns in relation to people using the service being discriminated against or not having access to the care they required.

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.

At the time of our inspection, the provider was not caring for anyone who required end of life care, but staff had been trained to provide care to people at the end of their lives. The management team told us which healthcare professionals they would involve, if required. There was a policy in place that focused on how the service provided compassionate end of life care.