Utopia Care Limited - Thurrock Branch

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.

The service was in breach of regulation in relation to person-centred care. People’s care plans and risk assessments were not person-centred.

This service scored 61 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changed in people’s needs. People and relatives did not always feel involved in their care. Although people told us staff were accessible to discuss their care, relatives felt they were not always involved in the care planning and decision-making process. Staff told us they knew people well. Staff worked well with people to understand how they wished to be supported and promoted positive outcomes for them. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their care needs and the support they required as individuals. However, people’s care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. A person told us they were receiving care from the same regular staff, so they received continuity of care. Staff confirmed they had a regular working pattern, and they were supporting people they knew well. A relative told us, “We usually have the same carers coming in unless someone is on leave. Consistency is important for [relative], so they are aware of who is coming each day. It would be even more helpful if the manager could provide us with a rota in advance.” The care manager told us they were currently working with a new system to ensure people have access to the rota in a timely manner.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us people and relatives did not have access to a written care plan in their home. Following the inspection, the registered manager told us they would ensure each person had a copy of their care plan kept in their home to ensure they were provided with information, which was accessible, safe, secure and supported their rights and choices. A relative told us, “I have been offered access to the App and that would really be a lifesaver. I haven’t heard anything since having taken up the offer, so I am not sure if families have been given access yet or not.” The registered manager told us they are working with the care planning system provider to ensure everyone has access to the care plans.

The service 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 care manager told us they carried out regular call monitoring calls and visits to obtain feedback. Each person had a QR code in their home which allowed them to provide instant feedback. This was monitored by the care manager. However, most people and relatives said they were not given an opportunity to share concerns or provide feedback about the quality of care. A person told us, “Most of our day to day contact is with the carers. Nobody has ever asked me for feedback, but we do receive emails from them.” A relative told us, “I don’t remember ever being asked for feedback about the care. I usually speak to the carers themselves.”

Most people and relatives told us they had access to all the services they needed.

The registered manager told us regular meetings were held with all staff to ensure appropriate referrals were made in a timely way when needed.

We received positive feedback from a healthcare professional. A health professional told us, “Both the registered and care manager are approachable, honest, and have kept in frequent communication with ourselves.”

The provider had processes in place to ensure people had access to the right services when they needed them. However, this was not always reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments.

People told us they were supported to access the healthcare they needed such as visits from the GP practice, district nurses and palliative care team.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act acknowledging diversity and valuing differences.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare to maintain their wellbeing. Where indicated people were supported to attend specialist health appointments for continued monitoring and treatment. The service had developed good relationships with their GP practice and district nurse team.

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’s care plans did not include information and discussions around making informed decisions about their end of life wishes. We did see where people had a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order’ in place, their care plans informed staff or other professionals where it was kept in the event of a medical emergency.

Staff had not received training in end of life care. This meant they may not have had the skills or confidence to provide effective, compassionate and person-centred support to people approaching the end of their lives.