Multiple Care Solutions 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 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 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.

Care provided was person-centred. Care plans were person-centred, based around the needs of individuals. People told us staff knew how to meet their needs. We saw a compliment from a relative of a person who used the service. They found carers to be competent, hardworking, pleasant and trustworthy.

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.

The provider worked with people and their relatives to provide consistent and person-centred care. People’s needs were understood by staff.

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

The registered manager told us that at the time of assessment all people using the service were able to communicate well in both written and spoken English. People had no specific needs around how information was provided. They added that information could be provided in different formats in the future if required. A staff member told us they worked with one person who shared a first language with them other than English, which they both spoke in. They told us this helped them to form a good relationship with the person, but added the person could also speak English well.

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.

People were listed to and involved in their care. Initial care assessments were caried out in conjunction with people. The registered manager told us they had regular contact with people and people confirmed this. One person said, “[Registered manager] has been to see me since we started. They have phoned me to find out how things are going.” There was a complaints policy in place. People told us they knew how to make a complaint, although they had not needed to do so. One person said, “I don’t have any complaints."

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

People could access the care and support when they needed it. Times for visits were agreed with the person at times that suited them. We saw rotas which confirmed this. Staff understood people’s needs and they were able to provide the support that was needed. A staff member told us, “I was given a copy of the care plan for them [person using the service].” This helped them to understand the person’s needs.

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 sought to meet people’s needs around equality and diversity, for example, people were able to choose the gender of their care staff. Equality and diversity was also covered in people’s care plans. The provider had a policy on equality and diversity to help provide guidance to staff.

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.

At the time of inspection no one was receiving end of life care, although they had information in their care plan about whether they wanted resuscitation attempted if required. The provider had previously worked with a person who required end of life care, and they had worked alongside other relevant agencies to provide the support required. This had been covered in their care plan.