SureCare Colchester & Braintree

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. They shared their commitment to maintaining this as the service increases its service size.

Care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences. Care delivery aligned with people’s care plans with records of care reflecting this.

People told us they were involved and consulted about their care. Staff knew people well. People had good continuity of care.

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.

Care records confirmed that relevant health and care professionals were contacted when people needed to see them.

People received support flexibly to fit around their life. Where changes were needed, office staff worked to meet people’s preferred visit times and accommodate any changes. We saw an example where a person’s circumstances had changed and the service acted promptly and flexibly to support that person at short notice.

Systems were in place to monitor and review care to ensure that care plans and staff were up to date with what support was required to meet people’s care and support needs.

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

People were given information in a way which met their communication needs. The provider met the Accessible Information Standard whereby they could provide information in alternate formats, when needed. For example, People’s communication needs and preferences were recorded within their care plans.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They could demonstrate how staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People, their family, friends and other carers understood how to give feedback, share ideas or complain about care, support and treatment if required.

People felt confident that their views or concerns would be respected, taken seriously and treated compassionately.

Surveys were sent out and regular quality reviews were conducted by management asking for feedback about the service people receive and actions taken as a result were shared with people and staff.

Staff views were also welcomed and staff surveys conducted.

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

Staff were responsive to people’s and ensured they received care and support in line with their preferences. Records showed that people had equal access to services, including healthcare, and were supported in a timely manner. People were treated fairly and equitably, with reasonable adjustments made where required.

Staff and leaders were able to demonstrate they recognised and 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.

The provider completed regular care reviews to ensure people’s care continued to meet their needs and new goals could be set.

The provider had appropriate policies in place, such as Equality and Diversity, lone working, complaints and safeguarding to guide equitable practice. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion which helped them better understand and reduce inequalities which may be faced by people using the service. The registered manager told us they are committed to this as the service grows.

People using the service told us they felt listened to by the provider and the support provided was tailored to their wishes and preferences. People’s experience of the service was positive. People felt the support met their 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.

Staff we spoke with assured us that they were familiar with people's 'Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation' (DNACPR) records or RESPECT forms and the importance of them if they were in place. Care plans were clear in showing peoples choices in relation to their resuscitation status.

At the time of our assessment the service was not supporting anyone with ‘end of life’ care.