Extra Care Service

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 68 (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. People told us they were involved in developing their care plans and had access to them when needed. We observed interactions between staff and people, and staff knew individuals well and engaged with them in a person-centred way. People and their relatives said staff involved them in decisions and respected their preferences. One person told us, “I know the majority of them well and they know me, they are really lovely people, all of them.”

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. Leaders ensured people received continuity of care by allocating familiar staff. The service worked closely with commissioners to ensure continuity of care was effectively planned and maintained, enabling people to receive stable and coordinated support. An external professional told us, “The staff will keep you updated on any situation that may arise for the best outcomes for the clients they provide ongoing support to.” We viewed evidence of routine and ongoing reviews, including monitoring of delivered care hours, to ensure the support provided continued to meet people’s assessed needs and remained responsive to any changes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information but formats were not always tailored to individual needs. People had access to alternative formats, such as an easy read service user guide; however, we found one person who required a larger print care plan had not been provided with this.The information shared with people was up to date. The service also produced a newsletter that highlighted activities people had taken part in and shared details of upcoming events and celebrations, such as St Patrick’s Day.Staff had completed The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) training, ensuring they understood their responsibilities in relation to data protection, confidentiality and the safe handling of people’s personal information.

The provider made it easy for people to 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 service appropriately supported people to access advocacy services when needed. There had been no recent complaints at the time of our visit, however, the provider was able to show us clear processes that would be followed if a concern or complaint was raised.

People had not been supported in the past 12 months to share feedback and ideas through a survey. The service offered annual surveys to gather people’s views, however, these had not been completed with people using the service in the last year. We viewed surveys from previous years, along with the 2024 “You spoke and we listened”, which showed how the provider had previously acted on feedback and communicated changes back to people. Without recent surveys, people had fewer opportunities to influence their care, and the provider had less up to date insight to support ongoing service improvement.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff liaised effectively with health and social care professionals to ensure people’s needs were met promptly. Staff were always available on site, and people and relatives raised no concerns about access to support. Peoples feedback indicated that they received timely care, and any changes in their needs were responded to appropriately, with no evidence of delays, barriers or inequalities.

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.People’s care was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. People and their relatives told us they had no concerns about discrimination or unfair treatment. The management team told us they ensured that people’s needs were met fairly and consistently. Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed that everyone received the same standard of care, regardless of their background or personal characteristics.

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. People were supported to plan for their future care needs. Where appropriate, people were helped to develop advanced care plans and were encouraged to involve their families in these discussions. People were also supported to talk about their end of life preferences to ensure their wishes were understood and respected.