Argent Care Limited

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 71 (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.

All staff had access to the person’s care plan, which was printed and stored in a folder at the person’s home. Staff referred to this folder during visits to ensure they followed the person’s preferences and requirements. This contained detailed person-centred task instructions and staff used this in conjunction with their discussions with the person at each visit.

The person’s advocate felt the standard of care was person-centred and took into consideration the person’s individual 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.

The person received care from the same staff and had developed good working relationships which meant their needs were in line with their wishes. The person’s advocate said staff worked closely with them at all times, so care was joined up.

Staff said they made sure they communicated with the person’s advocate so care could be coordinated, as they knew they were a significant support in the person’s life.

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

The provider understood the Accessible Information Standard. The person’s communication needs were identified during the initial assessment and care planning process, and documented in the care plan and risk assessments, which were accessible to all staff.
 

Staff understood how to respect the person’s communication style, and used written communication when the service user had difficulty hearing. They adapted their approaches as needed to support their continuing verbal communication. This ensured the person felt heard, understood, and valued. The provider and the person’s advocate told us effective communication reduced the person’s frustration and increased their engagement in daily activities.
 

The provider told us all documentation, schedules, and updates were communicated in a way the person could access, using a combination of verbal explanation and written notes when necessary. Staff checked understanding and adapted their approach during each interaction.

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.

The provider told us there were opportunities within daily interactions for the person to share any feedback, ideas, suggestions or complaints. There were also more formal methods used to obtain feedback, such as client satisfaction surveys, which gave opportunities to raise any issues. The client survey we reviewed was highly positive in content.

The person’s advocate told us they felt the person was kept fully involved in any matters around their care and support, and they felt listened to and valued for their views.

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

The person’s advocate told us the service was reliable and sufficient staff attended on time to ensure the person’s care needs were met in a timely way. They told us where there were occasional potential delays due to unforeseen circumstances, staff always communicated clearly and took steps to minimise this.

The provider understood where there may be potential barriers in access to care and put support measures in place to ensure people’s rights were protected. Staff adapted their ways of working to mitigate any barriers to communication. There were on-call arrangements which staff said were reliable should an emergency arise.

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 was alert to potential discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage the person using their service. They were proactive in seeking out ways to address these barriers to improve the person’s experience, and allocated resources and opportunities to ensure equity.

Staff ensured the person’s care routines accommodated their physical and sensory needs while respecting their beliefs and cultural background. There was a clear focus on providing personalised care that respected the person’s protected equality characteristics.

People were mostly 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 were regularly updated to reflect a holistic, person-centred approach, although at the time of our assessment there was limited information to demonstrate important life changes, such as end of life, had been discussed. The provider said they understood the need to ensure such discussions were considered and would address this in line with developing the care plans further.