Dimensions South West Counties Domiciliary Care Office

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 and their relatives told us they were supported in a way that ensured their needs were always considered. People regularly had a person centred review from the provider to ensure they were receiving the support they wanted.

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’s records demonstrated they had seen other care providers as needed. This meant people were receiving a holistic service which put them at the centre of their care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, we saw information provided to people in easy read and pictorial formats. This enables people that may not understand written formats the ability to engage and communicate with staff and others giving them more control in choices they make.

When people had agreed to it relatives were able to sign in to the provider’s electronic recording system to read care plans and daily notes of their relative. Relatives told us managers were accessible and responsive when they wanted to talk to them.

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 provider had developed a people’s council for people they support to join if they wished. Th council met regularly to discuss the services they received and what improvements the wanted to see. The provider also held listening events and family forums to gather feedback and share service developments.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported with appointments as they required them. During the inspection we heard 1 person explain they had a health issue and wanted to see the doctor. The staff member they spoke to listened and agreed to call the doctor when they were open the next day. They also checked which member of staff the person would like to accompany them to the appointment so they could ensure they were on duty.

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.

For example, in one home where staff supported people with complex support needs staff did not always ensure people were having the same positive experience people in other homes were receiving. People seldom went out in the evening, and we saw people were getting ready for bed at 6pm rather than having choices about accessing the community in the evening. This meant people were not being supported in line with right support, right care, right culture guidance.

However, other services demonstrated people had more equity in their daily lives. The provider demonstrated they were supporting people to make real choice about how they wanted to live their lives.

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 were not always supported to plan for future potential changes to their needs. One person who was beginning to struggle with their mobility lived on the first floor of a house. Whilst a stair lift had been installed for some of the stairs, their bedroom was up a further 3 steps. When we discussed the persons deteriorating mobility with a manager, they stated consideration had not been given to plans for the future nor the possible need to move to another room or another house. This meant people were put at risk of not being in control of when how they moved to more suitable places and could limit their choices in the future.