Parry Healthcare 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

People had a care plan which contained their care needs and the support they required from staff. Staff told us they followed people’s care plans to understand what care they needed, and they informed the registered manager of any changes and shared other care staff so they were updated. Staff maintained records of care provided to people and it showed people received their care and support as planned.

However, care plans were not always detailed to ensure all aspects of people’s needs were covered. For example, care plans lacked clear and sufficient details of the level of support people required to manage their medicines. For instance, one individual’s care plan indicated they needed support to manage their medications, and they required staff to administer their medications. However, their medication administration record and daily care notes showed inconsistencies—staff administered the medication at times, while on other occasions, the person self-administered. The care plan failed to specify whether the individual could self-administer under certain conditions, or what those conditions might be.

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 told us the care they received met their needs. One person said, “I have mainly 4 carers. I can’t praise the care staff enough. They do things just as they suited me.”

A relative commented, “Family member is more than happy with the support they are given. It is very personalised care that enhances their life.”

Staff told us they supported mostly the same people, so they were able to understand their needs and build relationships with them. One staff member told us they have learned how to make tea for one of the people they supported in the exact way they liked it.

Care records showed the various services involved in meeting people’s needs and the registered manager told us they liaised with appropriate services as needed.

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

Care plans outlined individuals’ communication and language preferences, including their preferred methods for receiving information. For example, one person stated they preferred to be contacted via email. The provider demonstrated an understanding of these needs and ensured they were respected.

The registered manager explained that if individuals required information in alternative formats—such as large print, easy read, or translations in their native language—arrangements could be made to accommodate these requirements.

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.

The provider had a complaint procedure in place. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service. One person said, “I will call the office to speak to the manager.” A relative stated, “I will contact the [registered manager]. I would escalate it to social services if they don’t address my concerns.”

The provider maintained a record for complaints, concerns, and compliments received. Record showed these concerns were investigated and responded to.

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

The provider planned and delivered care to people based on their individual needs. People told us their care visit times could be adjusted according to their needs. For example, they could ask the provider to increase or decrease the times of their care calls. One person mentioned, “If I needed it, I could have an early evening visit or a late evening visit.”

The provider an ‘Out of Hours’ procedure which they shared with people and staff should they need support outside office hours. Staff knew procedure to follow to deal with various emergency situations.

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 understood their rights and they told us staff treated them well as individuals and they felt safe with staff. Care plans included information about people’s religion, race, gender and other protected characteristics.

Staff demonstrated they respected everyone and treated them as individuals irrespective of their backgrounds. Staff gave us example of how they supported people according to their religious and cultural preferences.

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.

At the time of our inspection no one was receiving end of life care. Where people had ‘Do Not Attempt Pulmonary Resuscitation’ in place, it was noted in their care plans.
The registered manager told us they would work closely with specialist teams such as palliative care teams, district nurses and GPs if they had someone at that stage of their life. They also told us they would train staff to meet the individual needs of people.