Mend 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 – 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 ratedgood.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People and their relatives told us they were able to make choices about their care, and these were respected. A relative told us, “The carers are doing everything we asked for, and they do whatever [family member] asks for without a problem.”

We saw evidence that the management and staff advocated on people’s behalf to receive the support to do things which mattered to them. For example, they liaised with the local authority to provide care which included supporting the individual to attend a weekly church service.

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 and relatives mostly told us they were happy with the care they received and felt supported by staff who knew them well. Concerns had been responded to appropriately, and the manager worked with professionals to make adjustments. Care plans contained person-specific information about what mattered to people, including their routines, preferences, and important relationships.

Staff received training relevant to the needs of people they supported. There was evidence people were supported to attend health and social care appointments and that staff coordinated with other professionals to ensure continuity across services.

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

The registered manager assessed people’s communication needs. Staff worked with people, their families and external professionals to understand how each person communicated. Staff provided information in formats people understood. A staff member told us, “For the most part, I can simply ask the [person], but if clear and precise communication is not possible, I can refer to the information in the [person’s] file. I can also pick up on non-verbal cues which help to show what [person wants] and I can then offer solutions.”

We asked relatives if the service had been able to make adjustments to the way in which important information was communicated. A relative told us, “They do, and they’re always open to change anything if it’s needed.”

The provider also shared information with relatives, if this had been agreed as part of the assessment. Relatives could access their family member’s care records and daily notes on the electronic care planning system.

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 involved people and their relatives with planning and reviewing their own care. People told us the registered manager listened and responded when they wanted changes. A relative explained, “They are always supportive if we need to cancel or change timings around.”

Policies and procedures were in place to manage and respond to complaints effectively. People and relatives felt able to speak to the registered manager about any issues or concerns and felt confident that this matter would be addressed. A person told us, “There's nothing to complain about. They’re doing everything I need, and I chat with them. It’s great.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to access the services they needed. For example, attending medical appointments, places of worship, and being out and about in the community when this was part of their planned care.

The registered manager, and staff team advocated for people to ensure that their individual needs and wishes were respected and supported.

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.

The provider told us they ensured equity in access for all people who used the service. Some people came to Mend Care after trying other services, which had either broken down or not worked for different reasons. The management, and staff team were proud that it was their service who would agree to support anyone who needed it, acknowledging that everyone had a right to good care and support. The provider shared their policies which included equality, diversity, and human rights. We saw that all staff completed training on equality, diversity and human rights and refresher training every year.

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.

Where people wished, their preferences were discussed sensitively and clearly recorded in care plans. If people and relatives preferred to do it themselves, they were either invited to send wishes via email or add them themselves to the electronic care plan. The registered manager acknowledge that it was a difficult conversation, that some people did not want to have, and that was okay.