Tring 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 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 registered managers told us that care plans and risk assessments will be regularly reviewed with people to ensure they remained relevant to preferences and wishes for care. We had not seen reviews that had taken place at the time of our inspection as the service had only been supporting people with a regulated activity for a short time. Staff told us they knew people well and had access to all the information they needed to provide support to them. We received positive comments on people’s care experience.

At the time of our inspection the service had been delivering a regulated activity for a short time so there was not a range of diverse health and care needs of people. The registered managers told us how they would support people so that care was joined up, flexible and supported choice.
A family member told us they were receiving care from the same regular staff, so they received continuity of care. Staff confirmed they had a regular working pattern, and they were supporting people they knew well.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People, their relatives and staff were provided with information which was accessible, safe and secure and supported their rights and choices. Systems were in place which enabled people to either receive information about the service or have their information in accessible formats should they so wish. Management and staff we spoke with told us information for people could be supplied in their preferred format as and when required.
A family member told us they were provided with the information of how to complain if they needed to.
 

The registered managers told us they would be gathering feedback from people and relatives in a number of ways, through telephone calls, surveys, emails, face to face meetings and paper-based surveys. However, as the person has only been using the service for a short time they had not had an opportunity to collect feedback.

A family member told us they had good communication with the office and management team.
 

The registered managers told us the processes they had in place to ensure people had access to the right services when they need them.
The registered managers told us regular reviews and good regular communication with staff meant any appropriate referrals will be made in a timely way. However during our inspection we did not see evidence of this due to the short time the service have been providing a regulated activity.
 

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. Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity that covered protected characteristics.
The service had not yet developed relationships with their GP practises and other local professionals.
 

People were not always 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’s care plans did not include information and discussions around making informed decisions about their end of life wishes.