Practice Plus Group - Devon OOH/CAS

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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 service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff understood peoples’ personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They displayed an understanding and non-judgmental attitude to all people.

There were arrangements and systems to support staff to respond to people with specific health care needs such as end of life care and those who had mental health needs. Training was provided on respecting and involving people in their care.

There were suitable arrangements for chaperoning people when needed. A policy was in place and staff had recently been reminded of the process via a quick read document sent to all relevant staff. All staff who chaperoned had received training and the use of chaperones was recorded. During out of hours periods, trained drivers provided a chaperoning where this was gender-appropriate for the person. If it was not appropriate, arrangements would be made to see a person at another service such as the person’s own GP or in a hospital setting. If a person declined a chaperone, then this was recorded.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. Interpretation services were available for people who did not have English as a first language. We saw notices in the reception areas, including in languages other than English, informing patients this service was available. People were also told about multi-lingual staff who might be able to support them. Information leaflets were available in easy read formats, to help people be involved in decisions about their care.

Family, carers or social workers were involved when appropriate for people with learning disabilities or complex social needs.

Staff communicated with people in a way that they could understand, for example, communication aids and easy read materials were available.

Staff helped people and their carers find further information and access community and advocacy services. They helped them ask questions about their care and treatment.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider organised and delivered services to meet peoples’ needs. It took account of their needs and preferences.

The service had a system that alerted staff to any specific safety or clinical needs of a person using the service. For example, those at the end of their life.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Comments from staff included that when changes were made to rotas, for example due to staff sickness it was managed well with people’s safety being at the centre of decision making. Other information included that there had been positive changes and staff felt supported to carry out their role.

There were mixed views on communication as some staff considered they were not informed of changes such as the introduction of home visiting paramedics, until they were on shift. Other staff said that they were proud of being able to empower and coach locality managers and reduce isolation for those working at bases.

There was a range of avenues for support for staff, this included a staff forum and wellbeing champions.

There were also targeted support groups for staff to attend if they wanted, such as those for menopause and men’s health.