Areys Care

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

Responsive – this means evidence was sought that people’s needs were met. This was the first assessment since the service registered with CQC on 29 May 2023. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person-centred care.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans and reviews did not consistently reflect what mattered to people, their preferences or changes in risk. Plans were not always personalised or updated. Several records reviewed contained generic descriptions of care tasks, such as “provide personal care” or “assist with meals”, without clearly describing how people preferred these tasks to be carried out or what mattered most to them as individuals. This meant care was delivered in a task‑focused way rather than being tailored to people’s choices. This reduced assurance that staff, particularly unfamiliar staff, had clear written guidance to deliver consistent person-centred care and respond appropriately to changes in needs.

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 told us they were supported by regular carers and were pleased with the continuity this provided, which helped them build familiar and trusting relationships. Where possible, the service prioritised maintaining consistent staffing.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and families could access information about the service, including out-of-hours contact arrangements. However, staff did not always record how they tailored communication to each person’s needs. Some communication sections in care records were incomplete. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to communicate with people in a meaningful and accessible way.

There was limited evidence that staff consistently followed the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Records did not always show how people’s communication needs were identified or met. This meant people may not always receive information in a way they could understand, such as easy read, large print, pictures, audio, or another accessible format. This could make it harder for people with communication or sensory needs to understand their care, share their views, or make decisions.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not always show how they listened to people, used feedback to improve care, or told people what changed as a result. Care records did not always show people’s choices, communication needs and goals. Where people had communication needs, staff did not always have clear guidance on how to involve them.

People and professionals said communication with the office was good. One relative said, “The manager is very responsive and always available. He listens.” A healthcare professional said it was easy to contact the provider and there was no delay. However, the provider did not consistently evidence that people’s views and needs were used to improve and personalise their care.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People received care and support. Staff were flexible when people’s needs changed. For example, they changed visit times, gave more support, or helped people go to appointments.

However, records did not always show that the provider had checked if people had problems getting the care they needed.

For example, one person had little family support. Records did not show how the provider checked if this made it harder for them to arrange appointments, raise concerns, or use other services.

Another person had mobility needs and needed help from others to attend health appointments. Records did not clearly show how this had been checked or reviewed. This meant the provider could not always show they had found and dealt with barriers to care. These barriers may have made it harder for people to get the care, support and treatment they needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff did not consistently identify or record risks that could affect people’s equality of experience and outcomes. For example, care plans did not always show whether people needed support with language barriers, cultural needs, sensory impairments, communication difficulties, or other individual needs that could affect how they received care. Some people benefited from cultural or language matching, and this was positive. However, the provider did not show a consistent approach to assessing, recording, and reviewing these needs for everyone. This meant staff and managers could not always be sure that people at higher risk of inequality were identified early, given the right support, and protected from poorer care experiences.

People were not always 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 and relatives did not tell us about any current end-of-life care needs during this assessment. The provider was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care needs at the time. However, records showed staff did not always support people to plan for the future. Care plans did not consistently include information about people’s outcomes, routines, longer-term goals or future wishes. Staff also did not always review care plans when people’s needs changed. This meant the provider did not support people to plan for important life changes, future preferences or longer-term goals.