Inspire Lives Care Services 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 of 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.

People received person centred care. The registered manager continually consulted with people and relatives, so care was provided according to their preferences and wishes. A relative said, “The manager rings me and takes me out for coffee so we can chat about how things are going. They check if I am happy with everything or if there needs to be any changes in [family member’s] care. They also support me in my caring role. They are incredible.”

The registered manager was keen to stress the importance of reviewing people’s care needs regularly to ensure their care needs continued to be met and to identify any changes to how care was arranged or their preferences. They said, “I am involved in care reviews, so I have oversight of all the people we support. Following previous feedback from people I have educated and trained staff on preparing basic English dishes such as egg on toast which was pointed out to me as an area to be addressed.”

Records confirmed reviews of care were undertaken and people were provided with a copy of their plan. One person said, “Care plans are kept on the table so we can see them too.” Another said, “Carers are always making notes on what they do when they are here on their mobile phone applications they carry with them.”

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and how to meet them. One staff member said, “One person I support has difficulty communicating. I use body language and communication boards to ensure I know what they are saying and what they want.”

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. People and their relatives told us they received a reliable service from regular gender specific staff they chose, who understood their routines and needs and provided consistent, organised care. One relative said, “When carers come first thing in the morning, they usually provide some of the personal care to my [family member] then. But, if they are tired in the morning, they do this at the end of the day.”

From people and relatives feedback it was clear the service knew of, and were involved in, people’s holistic care needs. Managers and staff, from the point of referral to the service, developed a joined up approach between people, relatives and health professionals

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service was meeting the requirements of the AIS (Accessible Information Standard) This standard is to ensure people receive information that meets their individual communication needs.

Staff told us they conversed with people according to their assessed individual communication needs. One staff member told us how they communicated with a person non-verbally and how this had been established over time to ensure their communication needs were fully met.

Feedback from people and relatives assured us they received information in formats they could understand. The registered manager was fully aware of the challenges and importance of communication. They told us, “We have a number of people we support who have communication difficulties. One non-verbal person uses e-mail and text messaging to communicate with us, and another person relies on lip reading together with using written text when we are in their home. These methods ensure staff and I fully understand what they are communicating to us, so we don’t miss anything.”

Care plans we reviewed confirmed people’s communication needs were assessed at the point of referral and considered at their care reviews.

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.

Formal and informal methods were used to gather the views and feedback of people, relatives and other health professionals of what they thought of the service. From all of the feedback we received, no concern or complaint was reported to us.

The service contacted people regularly outside of their care plan reviews and quality assurance surveys they sent to people. This ensured prompt action could be taken at the time it was raised. The registered manager said, “I am in contact with people and relatives frequently. I encourage continuous feedback and remind people we have a complaints policy in place to inform them. I would take seriously any concern raised. I also remind staff if people raise concerns direct to them they are to report them to me.”

Contemporaneous and detailed records were kept which allowed for the effective monitoring of people. Staff monitored and continually assessed people’s needs ensuring any change in presentation was promptly identified and acted upon.

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

We did not identify any concerns relating to people’s ability to access the service. There was no evidence to suggest anyone was disadvantaged or unable to receive support in a timely or consistent way.

People received care in line with their assessed needs. Managers arranged care provision in a structured way to ensure staff could deliver support reliably and as planned. This meant people experienced equitable access to the service and staff responded appropriately when needs changed.

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.

There were no concerns or differences identified of how people received or experienced the service. People were treated as individuals but, not less favourably from one another regardless of their personal characteristics, background or support needs. This meant people’s overall experience was equitable.

People received quality and consistent care which reflected their assessed needs. People and relatives raised no concerns of how they were supported. Considering overall feedback of their experience of the service meant we were assured the service from day to day was inclusive and person centred.

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 registered manager told us, “We discuss people’s end of life wishes when care plans are devised with them and throughout their care journey with us. This includes areas such as culture, wishes and preferences.

A number of people in receipt of care were diagnosed with life limiting illnesses and had a number of specialist health services involved in their ongoing care and treatment. A healthcare professional, who had current and previous people they had referred to the service, commented positively on how the service supported people at the end of their lives. They said, “Two people who were receiving care from the service were supported to have a ‘good death’. In particular the manager kept in contact with me as they deteriorated and their symptoms worsened towards the end of their lives. They were sensitive to the emotions of the person and their families who were living with a terminal illness.”