Gabs Healthcare

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 the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways which met people’s needs.

This service scored 32 (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 and support was person-centred, however, this was unique and specific to a single package of care and support delivered by the provider. There was limited evidence of an organisational approach to person-centred care and we did not see any documentation to support a person-centred approach to care and support for people with a learning disability or autistic people.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The provider worked as part of a local multi-disciplinary team to support the delivery of care and support for people. The provider received information and direction from the multi-disciplinary team but the provider was not able to evidence any understanding of the wider health and care system outside of this multi-disciplinary team. We were not assured the provider could ensure the provision of systematically joined up, integrated care for people.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. There was no evidence about how the provider developed and shared information for people with a learning disability or autistic people. There was a communication policy in place but it did not reference children or people with a learning disability or autistic people. There was no evidence of information available in easier to read formats and no evidence of how different methods of communication would be used to provide information to people.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Members of staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. We did not see any evidence the provider engaged with or listened to people to hear about their experiences of care and support. The provider did not have any systems or processes for people to provide feedback about their care and support. Where the provider had involved people’s families in discussions about care and support there was no evidence of how changes were made as a result of this feedback.

The provider made sure the person they were supporting could access care when they needed it, however, there were no systems in place to evidence how other people the provider might support in the future, would access care and support when they needed it.

The provider did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. There were no systems or processes in place to show how people’s strengths, goals and aspirations were used as a basis on which to provide care and support for people to live independent lives. It was not clear how people would be supported to have their desired experiences and outcomes. There was no evidence or assurance about goal setting or aspirations for the people with a learning disability or autistic people.

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. The provider did not have policies or processes in place to support end-of-life care planning and decision-making processes.