Vitale Care Chichester

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 inspection for this service. At this inspection 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.

Care plans were highly detailed and reflected people’s routines, preferences, support needs and personal goals. Staff understood how people wished to be supported, including very individual communication methods, emotional cues and daily routines. For example, 1 person required information in short steps with reassurance, another preferred highly structured routines and specific approaches to mealtimes and personal care. People and relatives told us staff “really understand” them and said support felt tailored rather than task‑focused.

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 said they usually had regular carers and that this made them feel comfortable and safe. Where people expressed preferences about gender of staff, variety of carers, or who shadowed new staff, the service took this into account. Staff told us rotas were manageable and that the office responded when changes were needed. For people with multi‑disciplinary involvement, such as physiotherapy, case management or occupational therapy, records showed care was coordinated effectively. People said the service communicated with families and external professionals to ensure continuity.

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

People received information in ways that worked for them. Staff adapted communication based on people’s needs, such as using assistive technology, repetition, written messages, or simplified language. Care plans clearly described communication preferences, including when staff should repeat back information to check understanding. People told us they received clear updates about care, and relatives said the office team were approachable and responsive. Staff also used the digital care system to share updates, and families confirmed they felt well‑informed about day‑to‑day 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.

People told us the office responded quickly when they raised queries or asked for changes. Staff were proactive in checking how people felt and adapting support if routines, mobility or confidence changed. People supporting complex rehabilitation said they were involved in shaping their goals and appreciated that staff didn’t “take over.” Compliments significantly outweighed complaints, and when concerns were raised, actions were taken and learning was captured.

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

People accessed the service based on assessed need, and there was no indication that anyone was disadvantaged. Assessments considered people’s cultural, communication and sensory needs. The service supported people with a wide range of ages, backgrounds and support requirements from short‑visit domestic support to complex physical and neurological needs. There was an out of hours on call system in place to support people and staff out of office hours.

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.

Feedback showed consistently high satisfaction across different client groups. People with complex conditions described improvements in confidence, mood, mobility or independence. Relatives spoke about the “extra mile” staff went, regardless of the complexity of the person’s needs.

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.

Care plans showed discussions about routines, preferences and goals, including longer‑term rehabilitation or health management aims. Families confirmed staff supported people to prepare for appointments, treatments or changes at home. Where people relied on informal carers, plans identified contingencies and escalation routes. Staff described how they monitored for deterioration and involved professionals when needed. People said they felt confident the service would support them as their needs changed. Where appropriate end of life wishes were discussed with people.