Holistic Quality 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 68 (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 included personalised information about their likes, preferences and personal history, which guided staff on how to deliver person centred care. Staff could explain and provide examples of how they took a flexible approach, so people’s individual preferences and wishes were included in their support.

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. The staff provided care that was coordinated, flexible, and responsive to people’s assessed needs. Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to ensure that people received seamless support.

The service worked with various health professionals such as GPs to ensure peoples assessed needs were met. Care records reflected the coordinated support provided by the service and external professionals, ensuring continuity and responsiveness. Transitions between services, such as hospital discharge or changes in support needs were managed well.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were no processes in place regarding providing information in different formats however, the registered manager advised that this could be implemented in the future, should it be required to meet people’s needs. The service supported people whose first language was not English. Where possible they arranged staff to support them who spoke the same language.

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 systems in place to ensure people and their relatives were involved in their care and could share feedback about the service. There was a complaints process in place which enabled people to raise concerns. In addition, the provider completed surveys to gain feedback about the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received support from staff according to their individual assessed needs and wishes. People had access to external health care and social care professionals as and when needed. Staff gave examples of how they supported people to pursue social activities they enjoyed, such as meeting up with friends and going to places of worship. People were supported to maintain regular contact with their friends and family. A relative told us the provider was flexible with visit times to accommodate family visits.

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 understood the importance of ensuring people could be involved and heard, regarding their care, to help ensure people did not experience any inequalities. People and their relatives felt they were supported to be involved and were listened to.

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. Although care plans in place included information about people’s goals, there was limited information available regarding advanced decision making and end-of-life care. Although the service was not providing end of life care to anyone using the service, staff had not received training in end-of-life care. During the assessment, the provider recognised the shortfalls in this area and evidenced action to improve.