Care Pilot 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 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. We reviewed care plans which were person centred, tailored to people’s individual needs and wishes and evidenced involvement of people, relatives and relevant professionals ensuring people were at the centre of their care.Information was detailed and person centred, including information on the person’s sexual identity, spiritual beliefs and preferred name and how people liked to be greeted. Information on care was person centred and was not solely task focussed for example, providing information for staff on support people may require with their emotional wellbeing and how people expressed their emotions.The registered manager and staff understood the importance of providing person centred care.One staff member described it, “Person-centred care implies that care is user specific. I make sure that service users are actively involved in their care. They specify their 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. Care plans contained detailed specific information regarding people’s diverse health and care needs. For example, one care plan contained details regarding a person’s care needs around diabetes and information on signs and symptoms for staff to be vigilant for and action to take.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People could gain access to their care plan and daily notes via the electronic system the provider used however they recognised that not everyone was comfortable with this and would provide an alternative means of communication for example, a paper version of the care plan information with people.

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. The provider sought feedback both formally and informally. We saw evidence of surveys being sent to people for feedback and robust responses to complaints. This meant people had the opportunity to share their views and people were involved in decisions about their care. Although we saw evidence of feedback from people and relatives, some people were unable to recall being asked for feedback, which we highlighted to the registered manager.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. All staff were clear about how to report concerns, record on the electronic system the provider used, and had confidence that the provider would address any concerns and make improvements. One staff member described the process they followed and told us, “I actually found a client on the floor we reported for an ambulance, there was a quick response from the company and ambulance team, it was good. I am very confident they [provider] would act swiftly and make any improvements.”

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 provider understood that some people receive support were potentially more likely to experience inequalities in outcome or barriers to receiving care this was considered and explored by the provider. Were possible the provider sought ways to address this, for example, assigning specific staff who spoke a person’s first language to support them.

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. The leadership team understood the importance of supporting people with decisions about their future and were able to give examples of support they had provided people with at the end of their life. We saw details in care plans regarding people having advanced decision paperwork in place, for example a DNACPR. They understood the importance of supporting the person with respect and empathy and respecting people’s wishes.