Eveready Carers

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 71 (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 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.

Not all care plans were robust or fully reflective of people’s current needs. For example, one care plan contained information that did not reflect the person’s actual history, as records showed a significant event had occurred which was not documented. This demonstrated that care plans were not always accurate or kept up to date. We discussed these discrepancies with the provider, who acknowledged the error and told us the care plan would be reviewed immediately.

Notwithstanding the above, care was arranged flexibly around people’s individual routines and preferences, including healthcare appointments. Relatives told us they appreciated the consistency and reliability of the care provided.

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 registered manager maintained oversight of care delivery by regularly contacting staff to confirm that visits had taken place as scheduled. This helped ensure people received their care as planned and reduced the risk of missed or late calls. People and relatives told us that visits were consistent and reliable.

The provider made efforts to maintain continuity by allocating the same care workers to support people wherever possible. Relatives told us this had been a real strength of the service, as consistent staffing helped their family members feel comfortable and confident with those providing care.

The provider recognised the need to strengthen monitoring systems and told us they planned to invest in an electronic call monitoring system. This would enable real-time tracking of visits, improve accountability and provide clearer evidence that care was being delivered as commissioned.

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

At the time of the inspection, the provider was not supporting anyone with specific communication needs. However, they understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard and had systems in place to meet people’s communication requirements if needed. This included access to easy-read materials, large print documents and translation services. The provider demonstrated awareness of how to adapt communication methods to ensure information would be accessible and understood by all individuals receiving care.

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 had effective systems in place to listen to and involve people in the running of the service. The care coordinator contacted people and their relatives every week to check on their wellbeing and satisfaction with the care provided. In addition, the registered manager carried out one-to-one checks with people twice a week to seek feedback and discuss any concerns or suggestions for improvement.

This regular contact helped the provider identify issues early and ensure care continued to meet people’s changing needs. Relatives told us they felt listened to and that any matters they raised were dealt with quickly and professionally.

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

People were supported to access care in a fair and consistent way. The provider accepted referrals based on assessed need and confirmed they did not discriminate against anyone because of age, disability, race, gender, or belief.

At the time of the inspection, the service was small and supporting one person, but records and discussions with the registered manager showed that policies were in place to promote equality and inclusion. The provider told us they would consider language, mobility, and cultural factors when assessing new referrals to ensure care was accessible to all who needed it.

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.

People received care and support that was delivered consistently and fairly. Relatives told us they were treated with respect and felt their family member was supported in the same way as anyone else would be. Staff described treating everyone equally while also recognising and responding to individual preferences and needs.

The registered manager demonstrated an understanding of the importance of equality and inclusion in delivering care.

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.

End of life wishes were discussed during initial assessments so that people’s preferences could be recorded in advance. The registered manager confirmed they would ensure staff received training and work in collaboration with relevant agencies if end of life care was required. A policy and procedure were in place to guide staff in delivering this type of support.