Age UK Northamptonshire Also known as Age Concern Northamptonshire

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 50 (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’s relatives told us they had not been involved in creating their care plans and did not have access to these. Care plans were task focused, rather than person-centred, although the system previously used by the service contained a little more detail. The Registered Manager told us one person’s relative was able to access their care plans with the agreement of the person receiving care but this was because they worked for the organisation and had been given this access as a learning tool. This was being rolled out to other people and relatives. The electronic care record program was new to the service and the Registered Manager told us she was hoping to roll out this functionality to other people receiving care from the service. Staff told us they ensure care is person-centred by involving people in care when this is being delivered.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The service operated over limited hours which did not reflect the needs of the population supported by the service who often need support in the early mornings to get ready for the day, in the evening to prepare for bed and at weekends. People using the service had health conditions that could change rapidly, and the service had not planned for this possibility. People’s relatives told us that it caused issues when the service had to stop delivering personal care so that staff could complete mandatory training.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The manager knew what was expected of them under the Accessible Information Standard; a standard which sets out how providers and commissioners should ensure disabled people and people with impairments or sensory loss can access and understand information and can receive appropriate communication support. However, they told us, “As an organisation we are very poor [at meeting the standard]. I am not sure that if someone came to us needing information in a different language that we would be able to do it. We could do something in large print but otherwise we would struggle.” People’s communication needs were not assessed. The Registered Manager told us that people did not have communication needs however one person they were supporting had dementia and sometimes needed information repeated. A staff member also told us someone they support is hard of hearing. People and their relatives did not have access to their care plans.

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. Whilst a log was kept of people’s complaints, the action taken because of the complaints was not recorded. However, people’s relatives told us that they had complained and received an immediate response that they were happy with. Feedback had not been sought from people, their relatives or staff until just before the assessment started.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service only provided support during office hours and there were no out of hours contact arrangements. This meant that people may not have been able to access the support they needed when they needed it. People’s relatives also raised the lack of out of hours service as an issue. The Registered Manager told us that the service was not able to expand their provision to weekends due to difficulties in recruiting staff to cover these hours.

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 and leaders understood potential discrimination and inequality people who use the service might face. They understood people’s rights under the Equality act and Human Rights act. Staff told us that people may need adjustments to their care as a result of old age and frailty and they may need more time.

People were not 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. There were no end-of-life care plans in place and when asked why this was, the Registered Manager responded, “It hadn’t entered my mind.” They told us that they keep copies of people’s RESPECT forms (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) but they were unable to tell how people would like their care to be delivered should their health suddenly deteriorate.