Reignscare Ltd

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 requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 had not always planned person-centred care. There was limited guidance for staff about how to meet people’s care needs. Nevertheless, staff knew people and provided the care and support people wanted and were happy with. The agency was responsive when people needed changes. For example, 1 person’s needs changed daily. Staff and the registered manager told us that if they were not ready to receive support at the designated visit time, staff would attend later to support them.

People received continuity of care. They were supported by the same regular care workers. Staff worked in collaboration with external health and social care professionals when needed. They shared information with others, when needed, to ensure people received continuity of care. An external professional told us, “The carers provide reports to their agency and to us after they have supported [person].” The provider had a 24 hour on-call telephone line which people or staff could contact if they needed help or advice.

The provider had not always given people the information they needed about the service. One person did not speak English as a first language and had limited knowledge of English. The provider had not translated documents to help them understand about the service.

Staff explained about the care they were providing and offered people the opportunity to ask questions and make decisions about their care during visits.

The provider did not effectively operate systems to gather feedback from people using the service. The registered manager told us they consulted people and asked for their views and feedback. However, representatives for 1 person said this had not happened and their only communication was with the care staff. Staff had adjusted care when people requested or needed changes.

There was a suitable complaints procedure.

The provider ensured equity in access. Staff supported people to access the services they needed. For example, being out and about in the community when this was part of their planned care. One person did not speak much English. The staff explained they found ways to communicate with them to make sure they understood each other. This included learning basic words and communicating through sign language. A staff member commented, “We are patient and take time to listen to [person]. We have also got to know each other well. So, we know what [they] like and want to do.”

The provider did not always ensure equity in experiences and outcomes. The registered manager had not assessed and planned for people’s diverse needs. Staff undertook training to understand about equality and diversity. However, records of this showed all staff members had completed this training alongside 6 other training courses in 1 day totalling 20 hours of training. The provider could not offer assurances this training had taken place as recorded or that staff had been given the opportunity for sufficient learning in this area.

The provider had not supported people to plan for the future. Discussions around this had not been part of the assessment or care planning process. However, the care packages people were receiving from the agency were limited and this lack of future planning did not negatively impact on the care they received. The provider was not caring for anyone at the end of their lives at the time of our assessment.