Frank Care Devon

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant overall people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance.

This service scored 64 (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 peoples' needs.

The service had been flexible and had made changes to respond to requests for changes of care staff and visit times. The service had respected peoples' personal preferences as far as possible. People and relatives told us they had been offered preferences of male or female staff to provide their support. The service continued to attempt to respond to preference requests, but this had become difficult as the size and skills of the staff team had reduced considerably due to the loss of the Sponsorship License (See Governance, Management and Sustainability in Well Led). This had made it increasingly difficult to deliver different care staff when requested.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People told us the continuity of their care was declining due to the loss of so many staff from the service after the Sponsorship License was revoked (see Governance, Management and Sustainability under Well Led). One person said, “They (the service) try their best to keep the same ones (care staff). But, I don’t always like the ones they provide”.

Staff understood the cultural needs of the people they served. For example, providing food which people were accustomed to.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider supplied, accurate and up-to-date information to the public and service commissioners, or to people and their relatives in formats tailored to individual needs. All providers of publicly-funded adult social care must follow the Accessible Information Standard. The service was compliant with this standard.

The service website had considerable information to inform the public, and potential commissioners of the service, about the nature of the service and what the service could provide. The service could also provide written information to people either considering the service or when they began to use the service.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Governance processes and systems had not identified the service was not responding to peoples’ concerns or complaints and was not communicating well with people. One person said, “I’ve complained about staff and about late arrivals. Not officially - more verbally. It’s led to no change”. This person also said they had on occasion been unable to have their personal care as the needed second care staff had not arrived at the agreed time. Other people had complained, though not formally, about the considerably late arrival of staff.

People who used the service and their relatives were mostly happy with the support provided by the care staff. One relative said, “No complaints. If I had a minor concern, then I’d contact the agency (Frank Care Devon). Anything more then I’d talk to the nurses (NHS community nurses) who’d point me in the right direction. If there were any concerns, believe me, they would be raised”.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Discussions with the registered manager and the office management team showed they understood how to access further health or social care support. For example, when care staff had observed a person appeared unwell the care staff had called an ambulance, and the person had been taken into hospital for treatment.

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 peoples' care was not always tailored in response to this.

The service had not always provided adequately skilled care staff to meet the needs of people with protected characteristics. For one person this had caused them distress. Peoples' support was not tailored to meet their needs.

The service was experiencing severe challenges with delivering care staff to people within a reasonable time of the agreed appointment time. This was causing people difficulties and distress.

Where peoples' needs were not complex the service delivered adequate support in meeting their needs and often went beyond the tasks defined in the person’s care planning.

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.

The service had supported people to make plans about their future care and had provided end of life care previously. The provider told us should end of life care be required in the future this would be provided in line with the person’s wishes.