Alcedo Care Central and East Lancashire

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 service 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 service 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.

We made observations during our conversations with families and through records that some improvement could be made to improve person-centred care. Feedback on person-centred care was mixed. One person told us, “I feel like my support is tailored to me, and I do get the help I need when I need it.” One relative said, “I want (person) to feel cared for, not just supported. At the moment, the care feels functional rather than personal.”

Most records were detailed and person centred, though some areas of care plans could benefit from minor additions of information being added. For example, in the children’s care plans we reviewed, we felt these could benefit from detailing play activities that the child enjoys and reference to the child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Some records were task based rather than showing a person-centred approach. Some minor areas of care plans were inconsistent. For example, one person’s weight records were contradictory. The registered manager implemented some improvements to some records during our inspection. Staff were able to confidently talk to us about what person-centred care means.

Although the service worked to understand the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, there were some shortfalls in driving consistency in this area.

Feedback on care provision was mixed, whilst one relative spoke about their package not always being fulfilled by the right amount of staff turning up, another told us "They’ve been flexible and understanding as (person) confidence has grown, and they’ve helped ease her into accepting help in a really thoughtful way. That personal touch has made a massive difference."

Throughout the inspection, staff and management made reference to various organisations they worked collaboratively with and could make referrals to for support when needed. This included working collaboratively with people’s GP’s, district nurses, speech and language therapists and children’s schools. One staff member spoke about care continuity and said, “One person I support who is autistic has a very set routine in the morning. I train other carers in the routine to ensure the person feels safe and settled.” We found examples where referrals were made to ensure people received the right support and treatment.

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

People could access information and could express their views in numerous ways including through surveys. Staff spoke about how they communicate with people using prompts when needed. One staff member said, "I would either hold things out for them to point to or choose, they can nod or shake their heads, they can squeeze your hand to signal too."

The registered manager was able to tell us about how they could make information accessible for people. They told us, "We can provide information in formats such as easy read, we have online care plans and can access braile or picture grams if needed." People’s information was protected using passwords on electronic devices.

Whilst the service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support, people felt this was not always acted upon appropriately.

People and their relatives told us they could provide feedback and told us that if they had any concerns they would speak to the staff or the registered manager, though they did not feel office staff always acted on their feedback. Staff told us they generally felt able to escalate any concerns to management to investigate, though follow up actions were not always timely.

People and their relatives were able to raise concerns or feedback through various channels, including using the service’s complaints process. We reviewed a complaints log and found there were no complaints that could be actioned within the log. Some surveys had been completed by people and their responses were mostly positive. In the small number of instances where some negative feedback was provided the registered manager explained how they were working to address these concerns. Policies were in place to support people to sharing feedback, including a complaints policy.

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

People could access care and support when needed as we found necessary referrals had been made when required. Generally, most people told us care was delivered on time, one person said, “The carers turn up on time, they do what they’re meant to do, and it all works well.” Staff felt people accessed the care they needed.

Care plans considered people people’s specific needs in areas such as mobility and communication. Emergency protocols were in place such as a business continuity plan to ensure safe processes should an emergency arise. One professional told us, “I have and do contact the service outside normal working hours as and when the need has arisen.”

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.

Most people and their families spoke positively about the care they receive. Staff told us they had no concerns about the care the service provided. One staff member told us “I do think the clients get good care.” Although no specific meetings were regularly scheduled with people and their relatives, care plan reviews were carried out face to face, giving people the opportunity to be involved in positive experiences and outcomes.

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.

People and their relatives who we spoke to did not specifically provide any information relating to this, but they suggested throughout our conversations that the management was approachable. The registered manager told us how they support families when someone passes away, they told us, “We always contact all client’s relatives following a client’s bereavement and offer support. We also provide the same support to our staff team when one of their client’s passes away.”

We saw evidence that people had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) in place where it was their wish. Details in relation to end of life wishes were not consistently in place. For one person nearing end of life, there was not a specific plan in place, though this was addressed during our inspection and the person did have a DNACPR in place.