Pure Care Agency 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 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 79 (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.

Regular reviews of people’s care took place to ensure it continued to be planned around their individual needs. People and their relatives told us care needs were regularly updated and this was reflected in the support they observed staff provide.

Records confirmed care was personalised. Staff told us the process of meeting people, and their families helped to get to know people’s specific needs. This was further supported through in-depth shadowing where staff and people could ask questions to ensure care would be provided how people wanted.

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 the care provided meant they could live as comfortably as possible. Staff appreciated that continuity of care was maintained due to the stable staff team provided by the service. Health professionals commented on the quality of service provided which meant that there was good integration with other health services for the benefit of the person. A health professional said, “There have been several incidences of advocacy work to support them [people] liaise with other professionals and services."

The provider was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service prided themselves on their ability to be inclusive to all who required support with their health needs.

People using the service at the time of the assessment predominately spoke their first language and English as a second language. While people had family who could also speak and communicate in their language, the service worked hard to recruit staff who could communicate in people’s preferred language. For example, the service worked hard to find a specific dialect for someone using the service to the joy of the family. This meant information could be shared more effectively.

The registered manager believed in equal access to care and information. The service met the requirements of the accessible information standard and was able to provide information in different formats to meet peoples needs.

The service had recruited a member of staff who was hearing impaired and able to sign in the event they needed to provide support to people and their relatives. The registered manager was also able to communicate with people who were hearing and sight impaired.

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 were listened to and relatives confirmed this. A relative told us they were regularly contacted to find out how things were going with their family member’s care. The registered manager confirmed they regularly checked in with people and their relatives to ensure needs were being met by the service.

People and relatives knew how to contact the service and the registered manager if they wanted to provide feedback or to raise a complaint. There had been no formal complaints raised with the service. Staff told us they were also there to advocate on behalf of people and feedback to the provider if people were dissatisfied with an aspect of their care.

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

People and their family told us they were treated with respect and there was no discrimination when care was delivered. People and their relatives told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of each call.

People knew who to contact in an emergency and there was an out of hours system in operation for people and their relatives to use.

Care plans were explicit in documenting people’s specific needs and adjustments required to ensure safe care was given. A member of staff said, “We use our words and explain what we are doing to safely move [person’s] legs."

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 and their relatives did not raise any concerns about being discriminated against. They spoke fondly of staff and the level of respect they received from them at each visit.

Staff received equality and diversity training and they understood people should not be discriminated against when receiving 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.

The service respected people’s wishes if they did not want to discuss about planning for the future, but understood the need to address this in a compassionate way if there was a need to support people and their relatives.