BG Healthcare Cumbria Branch

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 service 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.

Staff provided person centred care. While we received some feedback about staff not always being able to be as flexible as people would like, feedback was mostly positive in this regard. One relative told us, “[Staff] have gone above and beyond. When [person] couldn’t pick up a prescription from the pharmacy, staff collected it for us which we thought was great.” One person told us, “I always get support when I need it. [Staff] text me or ring me. They do everything well which is why I don’t have any complaints. They come on time and ring if running late.” The registered manager told us, “We try to accommodate requests where possible, for example adapting to hospital discharges.”

People and their relatives generally felt involved in their care planning where required. One relative told us, “[Staff] came round to the house and checked [person’s] likes and dislikes. We were introduced to a carer to see if they got on and they did.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices and social services.

One social care professional told us, “I liaised with the care agency to ensure carers were at a person’s address when a healthcare colleague arrived so they could observe [ways of meeting the person’s care needs].”

The service generally supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, while people could discuss their needs with the service and access their care plans when needed, some people told us they did not have a paper copy of their care plan.

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard by identifying, recording and meeting people’s communication needs. People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans.

Staff understood people’s communication methods and styles and gave information in a way which meets their communication needs.

The service 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 service had systems in place to enable people and their relatives to give feedback, share ideas or make complaints. The service analysed people’s feedback and sought ways of improving people’s care on the back of this.

People told us they felt listened to and were regularly asked about the quality of their care. One person told us, “I’ve met [registered manager]. We did a survey last year. I`m very happy and wouldn’t change anything.” Another person told us, “We did a telephone survey about my carers.”

There was an up-to-date complaints policy in place. The registered manager kept a complaints log. We saw evidence of the service using the duty of candour and responding to complaints from relatives. Actions were taken to address any issues, where required.

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

Staff supported people to access healthcare and to go out and about in the community when this was part of their planned care.

The service advocated for people to ensure that their individual needs and wishes were respected and supported. One relative told us, “[Staff] are going to try and get [person] outside so that he can get some fresh air, and I know that we will need extra time for that. But I`m sure that [the service] will take that on board as they are very amenable.”

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, treatment and support promoted equality and upheld people’s rights, and the service sought to provide a person-centred service that acknowledged people’s differences.

Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities.

The service was proactive in continually assessing people’s needs. Regular reviews of people’s care ensured changes could be made where required, and support remained at the appropriate level.

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.

Care plans included information about what people wished to achieve from their support and there was generally clear guidance for staff about how to work with people to achieve this.

While we saw a good example of 1 person’s end of life care plan, some care plans we looked at did not include any information about people’s end of life preferences. We discussed with the registered manager ways of encouraging people to discuss their end of life wishes, where appropriate, and to include this in their care plans.