Altogether Care - Care At Home Limited Weymouth

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.

People’s care plans clearly reflected their physical, emotional, and social needs, including those linked to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

People were actively involved in planning their care and making shared decisions about their treatment, ensuring care was truly centred on their individual needs. Staff provided appropriate support to help people understand the options available to them.

Staff and managers showed a strong commitment to delivering personalised care that respected people’s choices and preferences. They demonstrated a good understanding of each person’s background, communication style, and support needs. This enabled them to provide responsive, person-centred care as needs changed. People and their relatives confirmed that care reviews were carried out regularly, ensuring care remained appropriate and 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.

Systems were in place to ensure people were supported by staff who knew them well and could adapt to people’s social and emotional needs. The management team and staff demonstrated an in-depth understanding of people’s needs, including their challenges and their achievements. Staffing levels were adjusted according to people’s needs and level of support required. Staff worked closely with people’s families and professionals to ensure continuity of care and to assist people to develop and achieve positive outcomes.

Staff consistently evaluated their approach and considered alternative strategies to better support the person in achieving their goals. Staff considered potential risks for individual people and identified measures to reduce these risks whilst promoting a positive experience for the person. People and relatives praised the service.

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

The provider understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Staff explained options in ways people could understand, using plain language and visual aids where needed. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident action would be taken. All the people we spoke with were positive about the service provided and stated they were kept informed. A person told us that staff were “Well trained, professional and they took on board feedback.”

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

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. Feedback was gained in a variety of ways including via reviews, spot checks and surveys. There was a complaints policy in place that was available in accessible formats. All concerns were recorded and investigated, and any learning was shared with the staff team. People told us they felt comfortable expressing their views and that staff took their preferences seriously. Relatives described the manager as being, “approachable” and “responsive”, and said any issues raised were addressed promptly. This was reflected in the records we reviewed.

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

The provider and their staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment, and support, whether this was from the wider society, within organisational processes and culture, or from individuals.

People had equal access to care, treatment and support because the provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments.

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.

The provider ensured their staff received training relevant to the care needs of the people they supported. This helped ensure people were supported by staff who were skilled and able to support them to achieve their required care outcomes. Staff received training in equality and diversity awareness.

The provider ensured staff received awareness training in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equalities Act 2010, the Mental Health Act 1983 and Mental Capacity Act 2005. This helped ensure staff understood how to support and enable equity in people’s experiences and outcomes

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.

People were supported to make informed choices about their needs and plan their future care where this was relevant to them. The provider had an end-of-life policy and procedures which would guide staff in the event of this being necessary. The provider recognised not everyone wanted to discuss these matters with them but if people wanted to, they were invited to discuss how they wanted to be supported when their health deteriorated. This included where they wanted to be cared for, what level of treatment they were happy with and what they would like to happen in an emergency.Care plans contained information about people's significant relationships and who they wanted to be contacted if they were unwell or in the event of an emergency.

If people had a DNAR agreement (Do Not attempt resuscitation) it was recorded in their care records. Staff had guidance on where the agreement was in case, they needed to share this with any emergency medical staff.