suite B, 1st Floor Shaw House 2-3 Tunsgate Guildford Surrey GU1 3QT Also known as 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 68 (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 and relatives told us how the service worked with them to ensure continuity of care and support people’s individual needs. One relative told us, “[Person] dislikes change and is very distrustful of everyone, so there is a consistent team of carers each covering specific parts of the week. New staff are able to observe care 24 hours before starting with [person ].” Another person told us, “[Staff] can see things from my perspective. They’ve worked out my personality and everything they do is with my consent.”
This demonstrated the service worked with people to provide person centred care in line with their individual needs.
 

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. Relatives told us how they felt involved and integrated with people’s care. For example, one person said, “[Staff] record giving medicine in writing, along with what [person] has eaten and any observations of how [person] presented. It’s all there for me to see, and I add the same when I visit, so the exchange of information between me and the carers is very good.” This demonstrated the service worked well alongside relatives and staff to ensure care was delivered in continuity.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The registered manager told us, “Part of our care planning assessment and process is to identify these things. If we have a person with these needs, we will ensure the information is given in an accessible format.”
People’s communication needs were outlined and detailed in their care plans. People and family members were provided with written information left in people’s homes. Relatives and people told us they were able to contact the office with any concerns, queries or information.
 

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.
Some people told us how they were supported with any concerns raised to the provider, including changing staff and any concerns with lateness. One person told us, “Lateness was a problem, and I raised this with the manager. They tightened it up right away and it’s never been a problem since .”
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
We found some examples where people were presenting unwell and staff had not contacted healthcare professionals to ensure people could always access treatment when needed. For example, we found an entry where staff had noted one person’s right side of their body was “declining”, they were “unable to lift [their] right leg, right hand and also [their] lips on the right side seemed to be closed.” The actions taken involved informing the relative and management. However, staff failed to contact healthcare professionals at the right time to ensure correct treatment would be applied. The person was also found to have raised blood pressure in another entry a few days later . This meant people were not always supported to access care, treatment and support in a timely way and in line with best practice.
 

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. Relatives told us how staff supported people in line with specific individual needs. For example, one person told us, “[Staff] accept that when [person] shows a challenging nature it’s part of [their] dementia, and they work with understanding.”

People were not always 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.
We reviewed people’s care records and found although a resuscitation status was recorded, there was a lack of information about future planning including any wishes. This put people at risk of not receiving person centred care or experiencing positive outcomes if their health deteriorated. The registered manager told us, “You are able to form relationships with clients because we are a small service. So, during care plan reviews, initial assessments, complaints and compliments; the relationship makes these conversations much easier. In most cases the families tell us.”After the assessment, the provider told us they are reviewing this part of people’s care records to ensure this information is clear and accessible.