Cura Care

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

Staff made sure the person was at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Staff worked in partnership with people to respond to changes in their needs. Care records were written in a person-centred way and reflected people’s individual preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff knew the person well and could describe how they adapted care to support their dignity, independence and emotional wellbeing.

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked closely with a wide range of health and social care professionals, including GPs, social workers, therapists and specialist nurses. Information was shared appropriately, and staff demonstrated strong advocacy when supporting people to have their needs met by other services. This consistency supported positive outcomes and reduced distress.

People received appropriate and accurate information tailored to their needs. The service had systems in place to meet the Accessible Information Standard. People’s communication and information needs were identified at assessment and clearly recorded in care plans. Staff used a range of formats, including pictures, objects of reference, digital tools and simple language, to support understanding and choice. Where required, specialist input, such as speech and language therapy was involved in developing personalised communication tools. Information was shared with people, relatives and professionals in a timely and appropriate way, supporting involvement in care and decision‑making.

The provider and management team enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff supported the person to express their views using personalised communication approaches. Staff understood behaviour as communication and responded in a way that respected people’s emotions, preferences and choices. Relatives consistently reported feeling listened to and described strong, trusting relationships with staff. Professionals described a shared focus on achieving positive outcomes for people.

Staff made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to access healthcare, specialist services and community opportunities. They acted as advocates for people and they ensured barriers, including delays or gaps in external services, clinicians making judgements based on previous history rather than recent changes and worked to ensure people had fair access to support. Adjustments were made to enable the person to attend appointments and engage meaningfully with 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. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The management team ensured the person’s social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met. Relatives expressed confidence in the service, saying their loved ones were happy and their needs met.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including planning for the future. Care planning included consideration of the person’s longer‑term goals, including increasing independence, community access and physical development. Staff worked with professionals and families to plan transitions and adapt environments to support future needs. Risk was managed positively to enable development rather than restrict opportunities. The provider demonstrated awareness of sustainability risks, including staffing resilience and external funding pressures, and took steps to mitigate these where possible through workforce planning and quality assurance.