Deep Heart Care Wiltshire

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 personalised and regularly reviewed. The provider had an electronic care plan system; however, people had their own paper copy in their homes. This meant people had access to their care plan at all times.

Staff were aware of the provider values, one of which was to provide person-centred care. People told us staff treated them as individuals and provided the care they wanted.

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. Information about healthcare professionals involved in people’s care was recorded in care plans. Staff knew who to contact if there were any concerns or if they needed advice about health needs.

Staff worked with other providers to make sure people had their planned care. Staff were responsive to people’s circumstances and adapted to join-up with other services. For example, some care packages had different providers carrying out different aspects of a person’s care needs. People said staff communicated well and records confirmed this.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans. If people needed information in different formats, the provider told us they could organise this. For example, if people needed a larger font. We observed some information and records were both text and pictorial. This helped people better understand the information provided.

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 process which people had access to. People said they were aware of how to make a complaint or raise a concern if needed. The provider regularly asked people for their views and used pictorial survey forms to help people engage. Records demonstrated people had taken time to share their views and comments were all positive.

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

The provider told us they had an effective and responsive on-call system and a management team who would cover visits when needed. The provider said if staff were not available for any reason, management stepped in and made sure there were no missed visits. This meant people had their care and support consistently.

If people needed contact with management, this was arranged in people’s homes. Whilst the service had an office, it was not suitable for people with mobility issues. The provider said, this had not been a concern as management home visits were a regular part of the service.

In the provider information return (PIR), the provider told us, ‘We are committed to delivering care that is person-centred and responsive to each individuals needs. Our services are provided without discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or any other protected characteristic'. People did not share any concerns about this quality statement.

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 was aware of people who may be at risk of experiencing discrimination or inequality. They took time to get to know people’s needs and their personal circumstances. If any adjustments were needed, this could be provided. Staff used an electronic system to sign in and out of care visits. This enabled the provider to make sure people had their visits on time and for the duration planned. This meant people’s rights were promoted if they were not able to speak up for themselves.

The provider was realistic about the levels of care and support their staff could provide and sought help and support from professionals if needed. Staff had been provided with training on a range of subjects to make sure they had awareness of equality and potential discrimination.

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 were asked about their wishes and needs for end-of-life care. At the time of this assessment nobody was receiving end-of-life care, however, we found some information about people’s wishes in their care records. The provider told us they had plans to make further improvements in this area of care, encouraging people to share more details about their wishes.