Advance Essex and East London

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 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported incidents. The support manager identified lessons learnt following accidents, incidents and complaints. Management shared learning with staff from incidents, accidents, complaints and safeguarding so that the service could continually improve and develop positive outcomes for people. Information was shared with staff through supervisions and meetings. A member of staff told us, “The manager keeps us up to date with any changes.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. A person told us they were receiving care from the same regular staff, so they received continuity of care. Staff confirmed they had a regular working pattern, and they were supporting people they knew well.

People, their relatives and staff were provided with information which was accessible, safe and secure and supported their rights and choices. Systems were in place which enabled people to either receive information about the service or have their information in accessible formats should they so wish. The management and staff we spoke with told us information for people could be supplied in the person’s preferred format as and when required. For example, information could be received in different languages, electronically, in paper format, different font sizes and Braille depending on a person’s requirements.

The service 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. There was a complaints policy where the management investigated concerns and took action to resolve these. The support manager told us they carried out regular call monitoring calls and visits to obtain feedback. However, there was no formal record of the calls or visits made.

People could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. We saw people had been referred to a range of different health professionals, such as GP’s, District Nurses and Speech and language therapists (SALT). Staff understood people had the right to receive the care and support that met their individual needs. A member of staff told us, “I make sure everyone receives the right care and report any issues.” We requested information from partners however, we received no information in response to our request. People were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Overall, people received appropriate care and support at a time which suited their individual needs. The support manager and staffing team understood people’s right to equity in accessing care and support. A person told us they were treated fairly and had not experienced any discrimination.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act acknowledging diversity and valuing differences.

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. People’s care plans did not include information and discussions around making informed decisions about their end of life wishes. We did see where people had a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) in place, their care plans informed staff or other professionals where it was kept in the event of a medical emergency.

Staff had not received end of life training, and this training was not included as part of their mandatory trainings.

We recommend the provider seek and implement best practice guidance and training for staff on end of life care to ensure support plans are consistent, person-centred and respectful of people's wishes about end of life care.