DLS SW England Regional Office

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 need. 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 79 (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. Everyone we spoke with told us they were happy with the care being delivered. People said they like the staff and found them to be good, kind and caring. People and relatives were involved in care planning. Relatives told us they were informed about changes to people’s care. Care records showed people’s needs and preferences were documented and understood by staff who were supporting them.

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. Most people told us the same staff were available to visit them on a regular basis. However, some people said there was at times a bit of fluctuation around having the same staff for each visit. The registered manager told us, “If a person receives care visits twice a day, we aim for the same 2 or 3 carers to provide those visits throughout the week. If a regular carer is unavailable due to annual leave or sickness, we allocate another carer who is already familiar with the person’s care and support needs and care plan”. Overall people were happy with the care and told us staff were very competent.

The provider was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care records showed that peoples communication needs had been assessed during their initial assessment with the provider. Information was clear and only shared with relevant parties when required. The provider shared several examples of how they tailored information for individuals.

For example, large print documents were provided for people with visual impairments and the service ensured that all documents were written in clear, simple language. Where written materials were difficult to understand, information was explained verbally so that the person fully understood the support they were receiving. In another example, if a person developed memory loss or a sensory impairment, they introduced additional visual aids, staff photographs, or large-print documents to meet their new needs. Staff were informed of any updates during handovers and team meetings to ensure consistent communication.

They also made use of technology to support communication. For example, staff had access to tablets or mobile devices to display visual schedules or communication applications that used symbols and text-to-speech functions. This ensured that people who have difficulty reading or processing written information could understand what was happening during their care.

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 from people and relatives was obtained through phone contact on a regular basis. Following on from one of these calls a person wanted to have later care calls by the agency, this was put in place following a discussion with the person. People and relatives told us they were involved in the service and could call the office anytime with suggestions or complaints. There was an effective system in place to deal with complaints. Complaints were fully investigated and escalated appropriately. The team understood the importance of responding to concerns and making changes as a result.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to health care professionals when required. Care notes reviewed showed people had support from a range of health professionals.

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 had a clear and robust system in place for addressing and monitoring outcomes for people. People had access to a range of health care professionals when required. Referrals were made in a timely manner. Audits of care outcomes were in place to ensure issues could be picked up and addressed without delay. Staff escalated issues to the managers as soon as possible. Actions were taken and recorded in care records.

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. Care plans included future planning options for people. In some plans people had recorded their end of life wishes. This included whether they would prefer to remain at home, the type of support they wish to receive, dietary preferences, and who they would like to be present. These wishes were communicated to the team and care was delivered in line with these wishes.