Care 4 U Wolverhampton 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.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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. Everyone we spoke with described a responsive service which took time to understand individual needs and preferences and create a plan which was specific to individual needs. People all felt they received unique care which was specific to them. A person told us, “The staff are always very responsive, they work to a person centred, specifically focussed care plan which does address the support I need.” Relatives told us how the service responded to any change promptly, often seeing a need they themselves hadn’t noticed and acting on this. A relative told us, “[Staff members name] goes about and beyond, they try different things like memory games and try and keep them stimulated.” Another relative said, “The staff are very attentive, approachable and totally responsive to all [person’s name] needs.” We saw care plans were detailed for staff with very specific instructions for individuals such as ‘please support [person’s name] to choose their clothing for the morning’ and, ‘leave a light on in the hall during dark nights at teatime’. The plans were specific and detailed in terms of people’s needs but also considered their preferences. Each plan we saw had input from the person and those close to them to develop it and these were reviewed whenever something changed. Staff alerted the office to anything which required review and this was done immediately. A full comprehensive review of all care plans and risk assessments was also completed annually. Staff told us, care plans had information about people’s preferences and their interests included. Staff also shared examples of how they had worked with people to provide individualised support.

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.The registered manager told us they worked alongside other services when providing care to some people. They provided care that was seamless and supplemented the other support people received. For example, 1 person lived in sheltered housing, and they were struggling to support this person. The provision of an individualised care plan, consistent staff team and additional support from the service had meant the individual’s needs were now understood, and they were now getting the support they need. Staff told us they worked alongside other agencies and saw the continuity they brought to the person’s care as of great benefit. A relative confirmed for us how this worked and felt the care was enhanced by the continuity the staff team bought to the person’s life.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had their communication needs assessed, and plans put in place to meet them. Staff understood how to support people with their communication needs and were clear on how they adapted their approach to ensure people understood information and could make their wishes known. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] is very deaf, but they communicate with them very well.” Another relative described how staff had learned to communicate in their relative’s preferred way which meant they were able to make themselves understood. The registered manager told us they understood the accessible information standards and could give examples of how they followed these when assessing and planning for people’s communication 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. The registered manager had a complaints system in place. There had not been any complaints about the service however we saw there was a policy and process in place to manage these should they receive any. The provider sought and received regular feedback from people and their relatives. They used a variety of systems including a website where people could give reviews. The website showed over 50 reviews had been left and they had a review score of9.9out of 10, based on26reviews in the last 2 years. All the comments were extremely positive. For example, “The staff at Care 4 U always go the extra mile when giving mom the specialist care she needs. They provide an extremely high standard of personal care, including washing, feeding, changing and administering daily medication. I regularly witness the wonderful care and patience they show to her. They are all so kind and treat mom with enormous amounts of love, respect and dignity. I have every confidence in their ability to look after mom to the highest standard and have never had any cause for any concerns in relation to the professionalism and support they show to mom and to us, her family. As her daughter, I am forever grateful to Care 4 U.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff were supportive of ensuring people had the care they needed. A staff member told us, “Whilst I was working with [person’s name] who lived in sheltered accommodation, they were initially reluctant to have personal care and any support. I built a rapport and eventually they became ok about having care.” We saw staff and the management team enabled people to access a range of support services when needed and this was clearly evidenced through the daily records and have been referenced throughout this report.

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 registered manager told us how they provided staff with training which included equality and diversity training, LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer] and inclusion and Neurodiversity training. Staff told us they understood the need to consider inequality and could describe how they had supported people to achieve their outcomes through tailored support. A staff member told us, “We have had equality and diversity training and understand the importance of this.” The staff member went on to describe how they had previously supported someone to meet their religious needs.

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. Nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of the inspection. A system was in place to develop end of life care plans should they be needed. People’s future wishes were understood and documented in their care plans. Staff could describe how they had supported people in the past when they had provided end of life care. The registered manager told us they were particularly proud of how many people they had supported who had been deemed to be nearing the end of their life to have a prolonged life following the support they had received. They shared examples of the compliments they had received from relatives about how staff had supported people to remain in their own homes for longer than was expected.