Carpenders Care Limited

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 service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

People’s care was planned in an individualised way and regularly reviewed. Care plans detailed people’s preferences and backgrounds to help staff to support them in a personalised way.

People’s care records identified individual needs, goals and required interventions to support people in their preferred way.

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 care. People’s needs were understood by staff. People’s needs were met in relation to equality and diversity. For example, people were supported to attend places of worship, and staff reflected the cultural diversity and ethnic backgrounds of the people they supported.

Referrals were made to other healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs. Staff were able to escalate concerns to the management where they felt the need was identified.

The provider supplied appropriate and mostly up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff supported people to communicate by using their preferred method of communication.

The provider employed a range of staff who could speak the same languages as people who used the service. A relative told us, “I think its great that they have diverse carers.”

Systems were in place to hold confidential information, and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). Service records were kept locked away or were password protected on electronic devices. This helped to ensure people’s private and sensitive information was only shared with authorised persons.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy in place. The registered manager told us no formal complaints had been received. There were systems and processes for people and their relatives to allow them to feedback information.

People and relatives were encouraged to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. A person told us, “I am not worried about speaking up.”

There were various systems in place for listening to and involving people. People were involved in their care plan reviews. The provider carried out a survey of people and their relatives to gain their feedback and also conducted telephone monitoring with people. People told us they had contact with the management of the service. A relative said, “[The provider] is very flexible as we need the care when I am away mostly. They are very professional, they do follow ups. I feel very confident that even if it was a new carer they would have been trained and know what to do. If I have any problems in the office I speak to [the registered manager] and they are very responsive.”

Management and care staff were responsive to people’s needs and took appropriate action to help ensure people received effective care and support. Staff received support and training to help them enhance communication with people.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider supported people in areas such as personal care and medicines. This was done in line with people’s assessed needs.

People told us they were involved in their care and staff respected their choices and preferences. People were able to choose the gender of their care staff and this was respected by staff.

Staff monitored and assessed people’s care and treatment ensuring any changes were promptly identified and acted upon.

People did not raise any concerns regarding discrimination or inequality in relation to their care. People’s care plans contained information in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met.

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 had their human rights and diversity respected and were treated with compassion by staff. People’s diverse needs and wishes were assessed, documented and respected.

People were supported by the provider to access the community and community facilities. For example, the service supported people to access healthcare professionals and places of worship.

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.

The registered manager confirmed that at the time of the assessment no one was being supported with end-of-life care or in receipt of palliative care. However, if such support was required, staff would complete the relevant training tailored to the person’s specific needs and requests.