ONECARE WORLD HEALTH 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 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 71 (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 were involved in their assessments and care plans. A relative told us, “We discussed the care plan with the registered manager.” Staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences. A staff member told us, “We get to know people through the care plan firstly but then you get to know them and about their preferences, including cultural preferences.” The registered manager told us all care plans were written to include information about people’s individual preferences. Care plans we saw supported what we were told, for example they included information about preferences relating to personal care, home environment and preferred names.

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. Partners raised no concerns about the flexibility of the provider to support people. The registered manager told us they had systems in place to ensure any advice from other professionals was included in peoples care plans, records we saw supported this.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had their communication needs assessed, and information was provided in their preferred format. Assessments identified needs, the desired outcomes and how staff should support people to achieve them. Staff understood peoples individual assessed needs and could describe how they communicated with individuals. A staff member described how 1 person used hand gestures to confirm what they wanted during the care calls.

The provider enabled people to share feedback or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, where people had shared their feedback about the service, actions taken were not consistently recorded to ensure effective oversight of the complaints process. A person told us they had shared concerns and these had been responded to and addressed, however there were no records of the actions taken by the service in response to the concerns raised. This meant the systems in place to enable consistent learning and oversight in relation to complaints management was not always effective. However, people understood how to make a complaint about the service. The registered manager told us they had a policy in place to support with managing complaints about the service. A system was in place to acknowledge any complaints within 24 hours and then investigate. The registered manager said the process ensured people were kept informed of all progress and the outcome was shared with people, including what actions they would be taking to prevent this from happening again and this would be done within 28 days. A log of all compliments and complaints was in place which showed actions taken when these were received. For example, where a complaint had been received about staff not cleaning up a spillage, the log showed actions taken by the registered manager and reminded staff about the actions they were required to take.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received support which was accessible to them. The provider ensured peoples individual preferences were considered. For example, the service was able to accommodate different times and enable people to state their preferences relating to the staff who would provide support. The provider had systems which supported people with access. For example, they could provide access to interpretation of care planning information into different languages.

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 received support tailored to their individual needs and preferences. Assessments and care plans showed consideration had been given to peoples protected characteristics during the assessment and care planning process. Individual information relating to equality, diversity and inclusion, important social contacts and individuals’ sexuality, religion and culture were all considered and the outcomes they wished to achieve were documented.

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. Nobody was in receipt of end of life care at the time of the inspection. The registered manager told us they had a system in place to assess people’s needs and document and plan for their future wishes when people approached the end of their lives. Staff told us they had received training in how to support people when they came to the end of their life.