The Village Care Group 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 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.

Care plans had information to support staff with the person’s individual daily care routine or what was expected of staff during the care visit.

People’s care plans contained information such as any hobbies, interests and their life histories. Care plans also contained if the person wore glasses or used a hearing aid. All people felt supported by staff who provided them with care and support that respected their wishes.

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

People were supported flexibly by staff who gave them choice and who respected their individual needs and wishes. People and their families felt able to raise any changes to their individual needs and all felt the service was responsive when they had done this.

The provider was able to supply information in alternative formats if needed. For example, if people needed alternative formats such as large print. The registered manager and the provider were accessible to people should people need to raise or discuss anything with them.

People and their families felt able to raise complaints and concerns about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

For example, people and their families felt able to raise a concern or complaint with the staff in the office if they needed to. One complaint had been raised about the service. Details of the complaint had been collated, including the outcome.

Various compliments had been raised with the service. People were also given the opportunity to complete a customer satisfaction survey. However, whilst people were given the opportunity to complete this, it was not always clear when people had provided suggestions for improvement, what action and outcome had been taken by the service following their feedback.

The registered manager supported people to access the care and support they needed. People were supported by staff who had received training in equality and diversity. Staff gave examples of respecting people’s choices and how they provided this in people’s daily care routines. People’s care plans confirmed if people had a specific religion. People and their families told us they felt respected.

The provider supported people in a person-centred way. Care was provided flexibly to people and people had the opportunity to adjust their care if needed. All people felt happy with the care and support they received and all felt able to discuss any changes with the office staff if the need arose.

The provider supported people with any changes to their care needs and with any important life changes. However, we found improvements were needed to explore and document what people’s individual wishes might be around future care planning and end of life wishes. We raised this feedback with the registered manager and provider. Important information was held in people’s care plans such as if they had a “Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) decision.