The Caring Company Rutland Ltd

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People we spoke with mostly said they received care and support in the way they preferred. However, we could not be assured care and treatment options had been considered to meet peoples changing needs. Care reviews had not been carried routinely taking place and the provider did not have effective oversight of people’s experience.

The provider told us they were taking action to review every person’s care and support and to increase their involvement in the care planning process.

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.

Some people were supported by more than one service. People we spoke with were satisfied with the service and told us care and support was flexible.

People were supported to access appointments and facilities in their local community.

Records of people’s care and support may not be fully up to date because people had not had their care and support needs reviewed. However, the provider was taking action to address this.

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

The provider told us they assessed people’s communication needs and provided information in the way people required. They gave us examples of large print and pictorial formats being used. People had care plans about their communication needs. However, communication care plans did not clearly set out how staff should communicate in the most effective way. They had not been recently reviewed with the person or their representatives.

The provider had carried out additional data protection security assessments to make sure data was stored securely and correctly. The confidentiality of people’s information was respected.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People we spoke with were not sure if there was a formal complaints procedure but told us they would not hesitate to contact the office if they had any concerns. People told us no request for their feedback had been sent such as surveys or questionaries. The provider told us they were reviewing the accessibility of their complaint’s procedure, introducing a service user forum and planning to send out quarterly satisfaction surveys to people and their relatives.

One person told us they had been concerned about the lack of contact and review regarding their care and support but arrangements had been made for a meeting with managers to discuss this

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure as required.

The provider may not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider did not have access to people’s initial assessment records and was in the process of reviewing everyone’s care and support and needs. People had care plans for equality, diversity and inclusion. These contained some important information about people’s unique backgrounds and life history but did not explore people’s protected characteristics or any adjustments required to support people. For example, one person had a sensory impairment but the care a plan and risk assessment did not record in enough detail the actions staff should take to meet these needs.

People’s capacity to make decisions was not considered with regards to their access to care and treatment. However, people we spoke with gave positive feedback, A family member said, “If I have problems with the timings on the rota I just call the office and they sort it out for me.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People we spoke with told us they experienced good outcomes and had good experiences of the service. However, we were not assured people were given opportunities to share their views or raise any issues with the provider.

Equality and diversity training was available to all staff. However, staff training records did not clarify who had received this training.

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.

The provider had no records of care and support reviews taking place to support people to be involved with future planning.

Some people had their decisions about resuscitation in the event of a medical emergency and end of life wished records.

Staff had access to online training about supporting people with end-of-life care. However, records showed less than half of all staff had attended this training.