Zi Mat 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 71 (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. People’s treatment and choices were decided in partnership with people, however, this was not always well documented.

Care plans were not consistently updated when people’s needs changed. However, staff told us they knew people well. Comments included, “I have gotten to know [person] over the last few months, [they] speak [native language], I can communicate better with [them]. Communication is good, I can understand what [they] like and don’t like. We have a good relationship, we try and provide the best care for [them].”

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.

Records showed people received visits from regular staff where possible for continuity. We spoke with people and relatives about the care people received. People told us, “Never known such helpful people, same group of carers, on time, keep me informed” and “I see the same 3-4 carers and always feel very safe in their company, on time, no missed visits, inform me if running late for any reason like traffic.”

The provider supplied appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans detailed their individual communication needs and provided guidance for staff on how to recognise, interpret, and respond to the signs and movements people used to communicate. Staff told us, “A client I go to I have to feed [them] [their] food, if [person] doesn’t want to eat or doesn’t want to have it, [they] will get up and walk away, [person is] nonverbal so I have to look at [person’s] facial expression and gestures.”

People we spoke with told us they have access to their care plans. Comments included, “Initial care plan kept in a folder, and I think the carers use a phone app” and “I have a care plan at home and on a digital App.”

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.

Most people were asked for their views. Some people told us, they have been asked for feedback, and most people received regular contact from office staff to check they were happy with their care.

Each person was given a copy of a service user guide when starting with the service. This contained information about how to raise a complaint. People and their relatives were aware of how to make a complaint or share information about their care. One person told us, “Never had to make a complaint, I would go to [manager], [they] would sort out any concerns, brilliant at sorting stuff out.”

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

Staff ensured people could access the support they needed when required. One relative told us, “I have all the numbers I need, if I need to change the schedule. I need more hours sometimes and the company work well with me.”

There was an on-call service in place to support staff and people who used the service.

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.

“Systems were in place to ensure people could give their views on care. Relatives told us ““I have received questionnaires on the phone, if necessary, communication is e mail and I can contact [managers] anytime, both are friendly and approachable.”

People were not 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.

End of life care planning had not been considered by the provider and was not discussed with people. This meant people’s wishes, preferences and expectations for their future care were not documented within care plans. Staff did not have clear guidance on how individuals wished to be supported should their needs change. When we raised this with the registered manager, they told us they would look into planning for the future with people.