Right at Home Calderdale

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 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 service 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.

There was a person-centred care policy in place. Care plans were person-centred and tailored to people’s individual needs, likes and preferences. People’s care plans detailed their life stories, hobbies and interests. People and their relatives said their care was person-centred. One person told us, “They [staff] really listen to what I like.” Staff demonstrated a good understanding of person-centred care. One staff member told us, “I write the care plan, so I try and gather as much information about the person, how they like stuff, what they like. It is not to suit anyone else but to suit that certain individual.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked well with local services to understand the needs of the local community. For example, working with a charity who supported with isolation and loneliness and a carers support group. The service had also planned for people to access a mobile optician and local food service, with a focus on nutritional meals. The service worked closely with a variety of agencies to support flexibility, choice and continuity of care. People told us relevant professionals were involved in their care when needed. One person told us, “If anything medical is needed, they’re happy to contact the GP or nurses.”

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

People were provided with comprehensive client brochures to support decision making around their care. There were accessible complaints leaflets available. There were regular newsletters published with information and local activities available for people. One person had visual communication needs. A large print care rota was printed off for them. People told us there was clear communication with the service. One relative told us, “We were given all the information when care first started.”

The service 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 offered surveys about their care. Review of these surveys show the feedback was overwhelmingly positive. People told us they felt involved in their care planning and felt listened to. One relative told us, “They [staff] listen carefully and take what we say seriously.” There was also a “you said, we did” document in place evidencing how people’s feedback had been actioned. Staff surveys were also completed. Staff told us they were able to raise any ideas with leaders around improving care.

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

People who may have increased vulnerability under The Equality Act 2010 were supported to access relevant services. There was an easy read policy for complaints in place. People with communication needs were given choices to receive information in a way that was accessible for them, for example, braille or a different language. People were supported to access community activities such as fitness classes and support groups. One relative told us, “My [relative’s] care is centred around their needs and preferences.” One person also told us, “They explain things slowly if I need it, they don’t rush me.”

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.

The service had robust policies in place for those who may experience inequality. There was an equality and diversity policy in place. Comments included, “They [staff] explain things in a simple way” and “It is reassuring to know that the service adapts to [my relative’s] needs rather than expecting them to fit around the service.” However, accessibility needs could have been documented more clearly in initial assessments. This was however documented thoroughly in care plans, and care was not impacted. The service has advised us how they will improve on accessibility needs on initial assessments.

People were not always 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.

The service had considered planning for the future and end of life conversations with people and had relevant documentation available to support these conversations. However, there was no evidence the provider had facilitated these conversations with people. End of life training had been completed by staff, however there was a lack of completed documentation in initial assessments and care planning around planning for the future. People’s views had not been sought or documented around important life decisions, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions. The service has advised us on how they would improve planning for the future in their care documentation.