Raychantpat Company 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.

People’s care was planned in an individualised way and regularly reviewed. Care plans detailed people’s preferences and backgrounds to enable staff to support them in a personalised way.People’s care records identified individual needs, goals and required interventions to support people in their preferred way.

Relatives felt informed about care provision and felt the service were responsive. One said, “Everyone in the company, whatever their role, is so responsive to whatever might be requested.”

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.

We saw from supporting records referrals had been made to other healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs. Staff explained how they escalated concerns to the service management where they felt the need was identified. Healthcare professionals told us the service worked well with them to ensure good outcomes for people.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Improvements were needed to ensure people and their relatives had access to relevant information.

The provider told us when people began to use the service, they or their relative were given relevant information and a service user guide. We reviewed this guide as part of the assessment. Whilst most people and their relatives were positive about the information they received, a small number told us they didn’t have a copy of their care plan. The provider told us this would be reviewed to ensure it was part of the pre-assessment process.

The provider understood their duties under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and made sure alternative communication formats were available, when required.

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 a complaints policy in place; however, the registered manager told us no formal complaints had been received since the service was launched. There were systems and processes for people and their relatives to allow them to feedback information personal to them. A record of feedback from people and their relatives was retained as part of the providers quality monitoring processes.

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

We saw evidence of appropriate and timely healthcare appointments being made for all people who used the service. The provider worked in close partnership with health and social care partners to ensure people had access to the support, equipment and services they needed when they needed it. Feedback from staff and external partners confirmed the service promoted fair access for people.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People received equitable care that was inclusive, fair, and respectful. Staff training had included equality, diversity, and human rights, and staff practice was checked through regular spot checks, supervisions, and ongoing support.

Staff told us they felt confident delivering care that was inclusive, respectful, and person-centred. One staff member commented, “I ask them questions to get to know them further, so the care is tailored to their needs. Little details about where they like their personal care support, how to maintain their privacy and dignity. Care plans are very useful, but speaking to the client expands that further.”

The provider did not currently have systems and processes that would ensure 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 provider told us they were not currently supporting anyone at the end of their life and nor had they been required to do so since registering with CQC. Advanced care plans were not in place, and nor had any been created. This meant key information such as if people wished to go to hospital if their health deteriorated or if they preferred to remain at home had not been recorded.

We spoke with the provider about this and identified there was a risk if people’s condition deteriorated quickly the service may not be able to respond appropriately and support the person in line with their preferences. The provider told us they would address this.