Three Sisters Care 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the care and support provided by staff. A person mentioned that they had recommended the service to their friends and families.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Care plans contained information on how each person must be supported, as well as people’s preferences. We noted care plans provided staff with enough information to enable them to meet people’s needs.

Care plans were reviewed every 12 months or more regularly if people’s needs had changed. This was done with the involvement of people who used the service and their representatives. Staff completed daily notes detailing the care they had provided during their visits. This helped staff to be aware of any changes in the person’s needs and ensure there was continuity of care.

Care plans were on electronic format, staff had access to them on their smartphones. This meant any changes in people’s needs were shared immediately so staff were kept up to date information about people they cared for.

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 worked closely with health services, primary care, and the voluntary sector to create a network of support.This helped to ensure people’s needs were met fully.

The provider had systems in place to promptly arrange support following an unexpected event, such as if a person had been discharged early from the hospital.

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

Information on how to communicate with people was included in their care plans. For example, there was guidance for staff to follow with a person as they had a speech impairment.

We noted that some people did not speak English, and the management team ensured that they had visits from a member of staff who spoke their languages.

The majority of people who use the service were from ethnic minority. We positively noted that the provider had staff who were able to speak Urdu, Gujarati, Bengali, Punjabi, English, Spanish, Arabic, French, Yoruba and Hindi.

The provider was able to give information in large print or in specific languages to people who needed MCA assessments completed where people did not have capacity.

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.

People were encouraged and had an opportunity to contribute and have their say about the care and support they received.

It was clear from our discussions with staff and from looking at records that people were able to make choices and were involved in decisions about their day. Staff had a good understanding of the care needs of people they supported.

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

People were treated equally regardless of their abilities, their background, or their lifestyle.

People's needs in relation to their protected characteristics were recorded in their care plans. For example, people’s needs around culture and spirituality were recorded.

People's preferences for care staff, such as if they wanted male or female staff to provide support and any cultural requirements and wishes were also identified and met.

Cultural days like celebrating the culture of particular countries where people were from were held, so people could feel included and feel valued.

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.

The provider ensured that people’s care and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

People were 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 registered manager informed that none of the people using the service required end of life care at the time of our assessment.

Staff had been provided with training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to care for people who were approaching the end of their life.

We saw that there were advance care plans, which recorded people’s preferences when they near the end of their lives which included their last wishes.