CREATIVE CARE HOME 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 registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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. They did not however always ensure person centred support was planned around people’s individual risks or changes in their care.

People’s care records were person centred in respect of people’s needs, wishes and preferences. It was clear care plans were developed in conjunction with the person and their relatives to ensure they were at the centre of their care and treatment choices when they first starting using the service. However, information on people’s individual risks and how they impacted on the person’s safety and personalised care required improvement. For example, risks in relation to people’s individual nutritional needs, falls, moving and handling were not always clearly identified to enable staff to provide person centred support.

Staff including the registered manager had up to date knowledge of people’s needs and any changes in the support they required. Formal reviews of people’s care however had not always taken place with care plans updated with any relevant changes. This meant some of the information in people’s care plans was not up to date.

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’s care was efficiently co-ordinated and properly joined up so that choice and continuity were maximised. Visits were regular, consistent and in accordance with people’s preferences. This showed the service respected people’s visit time choices and maximised the continuity of people’s care. People had the same staff supporting them which helped build positive relationships built on trust. No one using the service had any complaints and were happy with the support provided.

The registered manager was able to tell us how the service worked with other professionals in support of people’s health and wellbeing for example, district nurse team and advocacy.

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

People’s care plans clearly documented the person’s wishes and preferences. People and their relatives knew what care had been agreed, how and when their care was to be delivered which indicated appropriate information had been shared.

The provider had policies in place to ensure people’s personal information was collected and stored in line with data protection legislation. Staff told us they had access to policies and procedures in respect of their role. Staff accessed people’s care plans and shared information about people’s daily care using handheld devices which linked to the provider’s electronic care planning system.

People’s care records held information about their communication needs and staff spoken with were aware of these needs. There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure. No complaints about the service had been received.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider involved people in discussions about their care but did not always document these discussions.

The registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and any changes in their care, but this information was not always documented. Fully documented reviews of people’s care were not always evident. As the service was only supporting a small number of people at the time of this assessment, and with a very small staff team, the registered manager and staff were able to be fully involved in regular conversations with each other. However, this did not negate the need for sufficient recording and review systems to be in place to enable important information to be properly documented.

People felt listened to and had no complaints about the service.

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

At the time of our assessment, most of the people using the service had privately self-referred. The service did not currently have a contract with the Local Authority to accept referrals, but the provider was planning to tender for Local Authority placements once the commissioning process commenced. Once a referral was received, there was a process in place to ensure people received assessment and support in a timely manner.

Referrals to other health and social care professionals were made when appropriate with joint partnership working supported by provider. Records however did not always show the ongoing involvement of other professionals in people’s care. People accessed care that was supportive, equitable and delivered at the times of their choosing.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their support in response to this.

The provider has appropriate policies in place to guide equitable practice such as equality and diversity, equal opportunities and ethnic awareness and anti-discrimination policies.

People using the service were 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 and relatives felt the support met their or their loved one’s needs. People’s care plans included information about their cultural and religious beliefs.

The provider did not always provide support 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 the assessment, the people whose care we reviewed had not been asked about their end-of-life preferences, and there was no one currently supported by the service who required this type of support.We saw however confirmation of people’s advance decisions in respect of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation in the event of a health emergency had been obtained.