Companions in 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 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 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 support choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Each person had a care plan in place which provided an overview of their care needs, although we spoke with the provider about developing them further to include more details about people’s likes, dislikes and preferences, which were told would be introduced. ‘Service user profiles’ were used and provided details about people’s lives and their families.

The feedback we received indicated the care provided was person-centred. One relative said, “(Person) is living with dementia and they are very patient. They know how to manage (person).” Another relative said, “I feel the care is person-centred. (Person’s) needs are met.”

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 demonstrated a comprehensive approach to person-centred care, with care plans reflecting each individual’s needs, preferences, and identified risks. Regular reviews were carried out, involving people, their families, and relevant professionals, such as social workers, where appropriate.

The provider ensured effective signposting and referrals to external services, including GPs, pharmacies, and district nurses, to support continuity of care. In addition, there was a strong awareness and understanding of local services and resources.

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

The provider adapted communication approaches to meet people’s needs, using clear language, visual aids, or other appropriate tools where required. Information about people’s sight and hearing was not always detailed in people’s care plans and we spoke with the provider about capturing these details.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of personal preferences and adjusted their approach accordingly, ensuring information was understood and communicated in a meaningful and accessible way.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints abouttheir care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and toldthem what had changed as a result.

The provider adapted care in response to feedback from the people they supported, including modifying routines, communication methods, and support approaches to better meet individual needs.

Staff were able to provide examples of how listening to people led to improved experiences and outcomes, such as ceasing the administration of medicines when a person became distressed and supporting the family to take over this aspect of care.

There was a complaints and compliments procedure in place, as well as a policy and procedure. People and relatives told us they hadn’t needed to complain.

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

The provider ensured care was accessible to people by adapting support to meet specific needs, including communication, mobility, cultural, and language requirements. Staff demonstrated flexibility in their approach, providing person-centred care that reduced barriers and promoted equality of access and outcomes.

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 listened to people’s concerns regarding barriers to care, including accessibility, communication, and cultural needs, and responded to address and resolve any issues. Staff demonstrated flexibility and effective problem-solving, ensuring care was equitable and tailored to each person’s individual circumstances. Several people didn’t speak English as their first language and the provider made sure the staff supporting them could easily communicate in a language the person understood.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time tomake informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Although nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of the inspection, the provider had arrangements in place if this were to change.

People and their families were involved in open and sensitive conversations about their preferences, values, and wishes for end-of-life care.

An end of life care policy and procedure was in place. End of life care training wasn’t documented on the staff training matrix, and we recommended this is completed.