Closer Care Services - Main 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.

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 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect their physical, mental and emotional needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Gaps identified in important information and omissions in some records and guidance, such as for epilepsy or as required medicines, meant the provider placed people at risk of potential harm. These omissions demonstrated a lack of robust systems to ensure care remained responsive to people’s individual needs and in ensuring staff always had the information they needed to provide care and support safely.

Feedback from people and their relatives reflected people did receive personalised care, with a relative stating, “Yes we came and told [registered manager] about [family member's] needs and yes it's been adhered to.” Another relative praised the staff and told us, “[Staff] do a really, really good job.”

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.

People received continuity of care by a stable staff team which meant they got to know everyone, and everyone got to know them.

The registered manager worked with other health and social care professionals when needed to ensure people received the support they needed.

Communication between the provider and unpaid carers was reported to be good. One relative told us, “I am in communication with [registered manager] all the time. If I’m at work, I get a message from the manager.”

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

People spoke positively about the information they received from the provider.

One relative said, "[Staff] have helped me find my way, if I don't how to sort something out, or who to call, (in regards to their family member’s care and support) I have had a lot of guidance from them."

A large number of staff spoke multiple languages which enabled them to be able to communicate well with the people they cared for. One staff member we spoke with told us all of the languages they could speak, and stated, “I also speak body language” which they found helpful when working with people with limited verbal communication.

People told us they received a phone call from the registered manager to keep them updated on the rare occasion their carer was running late.

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 and their relatives spoke highly of the communication they had with the registered manager. One person said, “[Registered manager] came to find out how things were going and if we had any concerns."

People felt they would be listened to if they needed to make a complaint, and the registered manager would take their concerns seriously. One relative said, “We are absolutely satisfied, they have been on the ball anything that needs attention. Its gets dealt with."

The registered manager was confidently able to describe the process they would follow should a complaint be raised. We saw a log, with actions, had been completed for any complaints which had been received.

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

The registered manager advised they chose to be contactable at all times and on all days. Whilst their dedication was noted, a discussion was had about the sustainability of this arrangement. The registered manager agreed, and during the inspection, advised they were now sharing the responsibility with another leader within the service.

No concerns were received about being unable to contact the service.

Rotas and call data demonstrated people received their care visits as scheduled, and staff usually stayed for the full amount of time.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened 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.

Whilst the manager and staff team were aware of inequalities and the prejudices people receiving support may face, care plans did not always reflect how staff could enable people to achieve their outcomes.

We found care plans contained brief details about a person’s religion, but limited further detail about how staff could understand and respect their faith.

Whilst Equality and Diversity training had been completed by staff, we could not be assured staff had understood the training completely, and how quickly some staff had completed large numbers of online training modules.

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.

The provider was not currently supporting people with end of life care at the time of ourassessment.