One Impact Care - Ealing

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

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 plans were detailed and reflected people’s backgrounds, health conditions, communication needs and daily routines.

Staff followed this guidance and adapted support based on people’s needs at the time of care. Relatives confirmed this approach. A relative said, “Yes the team is responsive and caring and understands [person’s] needs very helpful.”

The registered manager described a personalised approach from the start of care, explaining that care planning considered “the person’s background or preference” and involved people and families when agreeing care.

Care was reviewed when needs changed, ensuring care remained aligned to people’s needs.

People received care that was personalised and responsive. Their needs, preferences and values were understood and reflected in how care was delivered, which supported positive experiences and outcomes.

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.

Care plans clearly set out how care should be delivered and included detailed guidance on daily routines, personal care, nutrition, mobility and wellbeing. They reflected people’s needs and preferences and gave staff clear instructions to follow, which supported consistency in care delivery.

The provider worked with other services and family members to ensure care was coordinated.

Relatives confirmed care was consistent and reliable. A relative said support visits were “very convenient” and worked well with the person’s needs, and another confirmed their relative received care from “consistent care workers who know them well.”

People received coordinated and continuous care. Their needs were understood and shared across services, reducing the risk of gaps in support and ensuring care remained consistent and effective.

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

The provider ensured people received accessible, personalised information that supported involvement in their care. Staff adapted communication to meet people’s language needs and used translated care plans to promote understanding.

Care plans and consent forms were available in accessible formats, including translated versions where needed. This helped people understand their care and the decisions they were making.

People received information in formats that helped them take part in decisions. The provider applied the Accessible Information Standard by tailoring methods to each person, including translating care plans into languages so people could understand what they were agreeing to. Where possible, care workers who spoke the same language were allocated to reduce barriers and support person‑centred conversations

Information about care planning, risks and changes was routinely shared with people and relatives. Reviews were carried out with the person, ensuring they understood their support needs and any updates to their care plan.

These practices showed the service promoted informed choice and supported people to remain involved and in control of their care.

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 relatives were able to raise concerns and give feedback about the service. A relative said, “They do take action quickly and resolve the issue if there were any problems,” which showed concerns were listened to and addressed.

Relatives described positive communication with staff. One said staff were, “Always approachable and available both in person or by phone,” which supported involvement and access to the service.

The provider gathered feedback through reviews and ongoing contact. Relatives said this included telephone surveys and supervisors visited them once a month, which showed people had opportunities to share their views about care.

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

Care was arranged in line with people’s preferences and availability. A relative said support visits were “very convenient… it works well with [person’s] needs,” showing care was accessible and fitted around people’s routines.

The provider supported access by adapting communication and care delivery. Care plans identified language needs and relatives told us, most of the care workers spoke the same language which reduced barriers for people whose first language was not English.

People were able to access care that met their needs and preferences. Barriers related to language, communication and continuity were reduced, supporting equitable access to care.

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.

Information about people’s preferences, including cultural, linguistic and religious needs, was recorded in care plans. Staff understood and respected these needs and supported people in a way that reflected their background.

Staff used cultural awareness to deliver respectful care that upheld people’s identity and supported fair experiences and 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.

People’s future needs were considered, and the provider planned ahead to ensure care remained appropriate as needs changed.

Care plans and reviews were used to identify changes in people’s needs and update support accordingly.

Care records included information about people’s health conditions, risks and preferences, which helped inform ongoing planning. This enabled the service to anticipate changes, monitor wellbeing and adjust care to support people’s independence and long-term needs.

People and their relatives were involved in this process through reviews and discussions about care. As a result, people received care that could adapt to changes over time. This supported continuity, helped maintain independence and ensured their future needs were considered.