SSA Quality Care

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery of care.

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 and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Most people said they were informed about changes via texts, calls, or emails. Comments included: “They (the office) text regularly and a visit from the manager once” and “I get a text or a call.”

Continuity of care was generally good, with many people having regular carers. People told us, “We do have our regulars (staff) and it’s normally the same friendly staff,” and “On the whole it’s the same staff.”

People said they had built positive relationships with staff: “There are a few we know very well,” and “They are kind and nice and chatty.”

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 and registered manager used a computerised rostering system which allowed staff to be allocated to people for each call. We found the rostering was well managed. In addition, a member of office-based staff monitored all care visits.

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

People were supported by a service which had systems in place to ensure feedback was requested and gathered. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider carried out face to face reviews of people’s care, telephone reviews and sent questionnaires to people to receive feedback.

Staff consistently reported that they recorded changes and reported them promptly to the office. This ensured people’s needs were consistently monitored and reviewed.

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

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

The registered manager told us, “We respect personal and cultural preferences, e.g. assigning carers based on gender preference, preparing meals according to cultural practices, and respecting religious observances.”

People were supported by a service that understood potential barriers to good care. The registered manager told us “We are highly aware that individuals may face a variety of barriers, cultural, linguistic, physical, emotional, or cognitive. We take active steps to identify these and tailor our care accordingly.”

However, we received mixed feedback from people about their understanding on making complaints. Some people told us they were aware of how to make a complaint. Where complaints had been made, people felt these had been resolved to their satisfaction. Comments included “We were happy with the response,” “We did (complain) once. I can’t remember what it was about but we were happy with the resolution.” However, other people told us they did not know how to complain. We have discussed this with the registered manager.

People were provided with opportunities to discuss and 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.