Future Home Care Limited (Mansfield)

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 64 (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.

We saw evidence that the registered manager and staff team worked not only with people and families to ensure care was person-centred but they worked collaboratively with external professionals to create a circle of support for the individual that addressed all their care and support needs. This was demonstrated through care planning, risk assessment, monitoring people’s health and wellbeing and supported by feedback from professionals.

One external professional described a scenario with someone they worked with and the positive and person-focussed way of working. They said, “I was extremely impressed by the teams' approach, showing dedication not only to this individual but also to maintaining high-quality, person-centred support for other residents.”

We saw care plans were updated to reflect people’s current needs when things changed and maintained care and treatment that placed people at the centre of their care. This meant people received consistent and relevant care tailored to their needs and preferences.

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.

Barriers to care and integration in their local community were known, documented in people’s care plans, and addressed by sourcing activities that were in line with people’s needs, preferences and ability. For example, some people who enjoyed music and wanted to socialise with peers were regularly supported to attend a disco. One person we spoke to confirmed they attended and enjoyed this, and we saw photographs of various outings that further supported people had been enabled to access their local community.

We saw numerous examples of engagement with health professionals and specialist teams to ensure people’s diverse health needs were understood, and the team reflected this information in people’s care plans and supported with appropriate additional training through internal teams where required to upskill staff.

This meant people experienced joined-up care which addressed their specific physical health and mental wellbeing needs.

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

We saw a number of examples of how information was shared and captured in ways that met people’s requirements for meaningful communication and decision-making. For example, we saw a pictorial document completed with a person which supported with decision making and the assessment of the person’s capacity to make a decision in this area of their life.

Where it was recognised people may benefit from a specific means of communication to support their understanding, but the person preferred not to do this, this was respected and documented in the person’s care plan.

This meant people were enabled to access communication means and styles that met their needs and preferences and supported them to communicate and for the team to communicate information to them more effectively making them an active partner in their care and support.

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.

Feedback was proactively sought from people living at The Maples using both verbal and pictorial communication and that this was responded to. Whilst people were not able to speak with us about making a complaint themselves relatives were aware of who to speak to if they had a concern. Feedback was also routinely requested from visiting professionals who were able to share their views on people’s care, support, and quality of life.

Staff understood their role in relation to supporting people and relatives to raise complaints and concerns. One staff member said, “[I would] listen to the complaint, then raise it with the team leader, I would say this in a professional way.”

The provider had a robust complaints procedure, and we saw information about making a complaint was also available to people in an easy read format.

This meant people and significant people in their lives were able to have a voice, give feedback and raise ideas or concerns about their care and received a response to tell them what’s changed.

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

People were supported to attend regular health appointments which we saw were recorded consistently to demonstrate people were accessing the care, support and treatment they needed as they needed it. This included the GP and district nurse but also more specialist teams to meet people’s individual needs. This meant people could access the service regardless of their background or circumstances, helping ensure that care was inclusive, fair, and tailored to individual needs.

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.

People were supported in a way that was tailored to them and took into account the person’s wishes but actively incorporated input from professionals supporting the person which we saw reflected in people’s care plans and the way in which they were supported.

The provider used positive behaviour support as well as a method of support called “Active Support.” Active Support isa model for providing support, particularly for people with learning disabilities, that focuses on active engagement in meaningful daily activities instead of passive care. This promotes people’s development of skills and engagement so they can lead a full life. The PBS practitioner told us, “We have the value of improving people’s life and empowering them to do what they want [through] coaching staff, and explaining what active support is and showing how active support can make meaningful change and when people develop those skills and they are able to do what they like.”

This meant staff worked with people at risk of experiencing inequality in experience or outcomes to ensure they had equity in experience and outcomes.