All 4U Care

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 75 (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 received support which met their outcomes and goals. Care plans, risk assessments and notes focused on what was important to the person and how they wanted to receive support. People told us they were involved and consulted about their care. Staff knew people well. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to support people in a person-centred way and were responsive to peoples' changing needs. The registered manager provided examples of how they had supported people to achieve positive outcomes and made progress to reach their goals and aspirations.

One person told us, “The office is on my way to the shops and sometimes I pop in - no one makes me feel like a nuisance.”

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’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive. Care given to people was documented in an electronic system and used to analyse staff actions and further care that people required. The provider was changing to a new electronic system to further enhance quality assurance audits. People were cared for by staff who knew them well and support was co-ordinated with other health care providers when they needed it.

Staff reported no concerns about the communication within the service and felt they were informed of changes to people’s needs in a timely manner.

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

People were given information in a way which met their communication needs. The provider met the Accessible Information Standard whereby they could provide information in alternate formats, when needed. People’s communication needs and preferences were recorded within their care plans.

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.

People and relatives were able to share feedback about their care through regular reviews and surveys. One person told us, “Office staff sometimes call and check in; they are easy to talk to and listen to me. They cannot really improve anything.”

We saw systems were in place to obtain feedback from people and involve them in decisions such as regular reviews about their care. Quality monitoring systems were in place to obtain feedback from relatives and analyse their responses.

There were systems to manage concerns and complaints. A complaint policy was in place that detailed the process. No formal complaints had been received. Staff were able to tell us the process to manage complaints and concerns, which was escalated to management for review.

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

People benefitted from approaches which embraced collaboration. Leaders actively 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. We saw evidence of joint working with district nurses and other services.

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 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. Leaders ensured people now had a voice by making regular contact with them in ways and at times that suited them. Leaders and staff actively engaged with people and had received training to identify areas of discrimination or inequality.

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.

Staff we spoke with assured us that they were familiar with people's 'Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) records or RESPECT forms and the importance of them. Care plans were clear in showing peoples choices in relation to their resuscitation status and end of life wishes.

The provider sent personalised funeral flowers to every person they supported at the time of their passing.