Flexy Care - Main Office

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 care which was person centred and were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their support requirements. However, more recorded information about people’s personal backgrounds, interests and goals was needed in their care plans. This would assist staff in engaging with people and help them to provide an enriched and person-centred approach, especially if people become distressed or upset.

Staff confirmed they worked and communicated well together as a team and with other care provider to ensure there was a consistent person centred approach when supporting people.

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 received care from a small core staff team who knew them well and provided continuity of care. Staff had a good understanding of the health and care needs of the people they supported. Staff worked openly and in partnership with other care providers.

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

People’s communications needs had been assessed and recorded. Staff had received training in good communication. People were provided with a service user guide at the start of the joining the service, which provided information about the expected standards of service and 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.

At the time of assessment, no formal complaints had been raised with the provider. The registered manager explained they always addressed and resolved any concerns immediately. They said, “However, if a complaint was made, it would be investigated and managed in line with our complaints policy.”

The registered manager had an ‘open door’ policy and maintained good oversight and actively engaged with people, relatives, and staff. However, the provider identified the need for a more structured system to routinely gather feedback for monitoring purposes to assist them to monitor and improve the service.

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

There was limited evidence to support this quality statement due to the current shared care arrangements with the primary care provider. However, the registered manager and staff were aware of their role and responsibilities to escalate any concerns with the primary care provider, funding authorities and professionals as needed. We were informed that staff would be made available to support people to access or refer people to health and social care services when supporting new people in the future. We were satisfied the service was compliant in this area.

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 benefited from staff who knew them well and were able to respond to their individual support needs. From discussion with the registered manager, professionals, and people’s relative, it was evident that people’s needs at the time of our assessment were being managed well with positive outcomes.

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 registered manager provided examples of how they had supported people to live at home during the final stages of their lives. Reviews and feedback from people’s relatives who had been previously supported by the service had praised the support their family member had received during the final stages of life.

Staff had been trained in end of life care and support. The registered manager planned to review people’s care plans to ensure they included peoples requested advance care planning preferences and relevant end of life legal documents.