BITAK Healthcare Ltd

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 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 ensured that people were at the centre of their care and treatment, enabling them to make informed choices about how their support was delivered. They worked in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs in a person-centred way.

The provider had completed personalised “About Me” documents with people. One person’s record stated, “[Name], registered manager supported me to write this,” demonstrating how individuals were actively involved in creating and shaping their own care plans. Relatives confirmed this, commenting “my [relative’s] care is tailored to their individual needs”

People were placed at the centre of their care and treatment and were supported to make informed choices about the support they received.

The provider demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local community, ensuring care was joined-up, flexible, and supported choice and continuity.

The manager told us they used a key worker system, where a consistent member of staff provided the majority of a person’s care, supported by a small number of additional staff. This approach helped maintain continuity of care while also ensuring appropriate cover during staff absences. We saw staff rotas that reflected this approach, with consistent allocation of staff to individuals to promote continuity and build trusting relationships.

Feedback from people and relatives was positive. Comments included: “They’ve been very responsive”, and “I mostly get the same two carers who are lovely.”

This meant people received joined up and flexible care from staff who knew them well, understood their individual needs, and responded appropriately when their support requirements changed.

People’s communication preferences were clearly recorded, and the provider used a range of communication methods to meet individual needs. These included telephone calls, printed materials, digital communication, and easy-read documentation provided in line with the Accessible Information Standard. This helped to ensure information was presented in a way people could understand and access. For example, 1 person told us they preferred to contact the office by telephone. People spoke positively about communication with the service, with 1 relative telling us, “I’ve always found the manager to be responsive.”

This meant people received information in ways that met their individual needs and preferences, helping them to understand their care, make informed decisions, and maintain effective communication with the provider.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns, or make complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and kept them informed about any changes made as a result of their feedback.

People had been asked to feedback on their experiences of care delivered by the provider. Although no significant concerns or areas for improvement were identified when the provider collected this information, we saw the provider had shared the findings in a written summary with people, this demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement through a clear action plan.

The manager provided an example of how feedback had been acted upon. One person had raised concerns regarding staff arrival times. In response, the provider reviewed staff scheduling arrangements, including travel time, to improve punctuality and ensure greater consistency for the person.

One person told us that the provider was “100% proactive and on the ball, always responds promptly to feedback”

This meant people were encouraged and supported to share their views about the care they received and could be confident that concerns and feedback would be responded to appropriately and used to drive improvements where needed.

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

Assessments covering the accessibility of people’s homes, and whether any adaptations, equipment, or referrals were required, had been completed. The provider ensured that, alongside people having access to services such as adult social care practitioners, family members were also supported to request social work involvement and mental health services where required.

Feedback about access to support was positive. One relative told us they had such confidence in the care being provided that they were in the process of transferring another family member’s care package to the service.

This meant people were supported to access the care, treatment, and wider services they needed, with consideration given to their individual accessibility requirements and changing circumstances.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about individuals who may be more likely to experience inequality in outcomes or experiences and adapted care, support, and treatment in response to their needs.

The manager told us that where staff had limited experience or exposure to supporting people with diverse protected characteristics, including people from the LGBTQ+ community, the provider ensured they received appropriate guidance, support, and opportunities to develop their knowledge and understanding. This included recognising that some staff's cultural backgrounds may have provided them with less exposure to certain communities. Staff completed equality and diversity training to support the delivery of inclusive, person-centred care.

Care records demonstrated that people’s individual needs, preferences, backgrounds, and protected characteristics were considered during assessmentand care planning. Guidance was available to support staff in providing care that reflected people’s individual circumstances, values, and choices.

Staff described supporting one person to access a community activity that they may otherwise have been unable to participate in. Through encouragement and personalised support, the person gained confidence, engaged positively in the activity, and enjoyed the experience. This demonstrated how staff adapted support to reduce barriers to participation and promote positive outcomes.

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 provider was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care. However, staff received annual training in end-of-life care to ensure they were prepared to provide appropriate support when required.

Care plans we reviewed included information about people’s wishes for their future care, supporting a person-centred approach and ensuring preferences could be respected when needed.

People did not raise any concerns about planning for the future or how their wishes would be respected.