Enhancing Your 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 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 treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s relatives told us their family members were at the centre of their care. They were involved in decision making and the support provided. Relatives participated in review meetings and had open communication with staff and the registered manager. One relative said, “The staff are all good. I can talk to them and they talk to me. We are open with each other and that helps [person’s name].”

Staff told us they understood and respected people’s needs and preferences. A staff member said, “I get to know people well and get to know their likes and dislikes. I spend time with them and get to know them. I know how they want to do things and how they manage. I provide person centred care. It’s not about how I want things done.”

People's care plans were individual and specific. This assisted staff by providing useful information about people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

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 registered manager worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure care was co-ordinated and provided the support people needed. Advice and information from other professionals was included in people’s records, and staff could access these.

Records showed that people had been given choices and engaged in a range of activities. Staff understood people’s social needs and supported individuals to engage in activities, maintain social networks and access community resources. This helped support people’s independence, health and wellbeing.

People and their relatives were supported to have choice and control over their own care and support. Where necessary, they had access to equipment which helped support their independence. Staff received training to ensure they were competent in using aids and equipment.

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

People’s individual communication needs were assessed and documented in care records and met by staff in practice. Guidance for staff included outlining the person’s area of need, identifying the goal, outlining control measures and describing how staff should support the person. This included through developing a therapeutic relationship, engaging in meaningful activities, actively listening, giving time and the use of gestures to support communication.

Staff explained how they understood and engaged with people who did not communicate verbally. A person’s relative told us, “They seem to have sort of created their own language. They understand each other.”

Information was recorded on electronic systems which were secure. Staff received training in data protection and security.

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.

People’s relatives told us they would speak with staff or managers if they had concerns or feedback. Systems and policies were in place to manage complaints and we reviewed concerns which had been raised. We saw the feedback had been accepted, improvements made and further comment was later received from the relative to express their satisfaction with the outcome.

Due to the small size of the service, feedback such as surveys had not been gathered formally prior to our inspection. However, the registered manager had sought feedback via phone calls, spot checks and regular contact with people or their relatives. During the inspection, the provider sent a survey to people who used the service and their relatives. All feedback was positive with very high levels of satisfaction reported.

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

People received support which was accessible and considered their individual needs and preferences. For example, regarding visit timings or allocated staff. Reasonable adjustments were made if needed to support people to access care, information or services. When people’s needs changed, staff worked with other professionals to ensure individuals were not disadvantaged or facing barriers to care and support.

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.

Managers and staff understood their responsibilities in ensuring people’s treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected people’s rights. Staff were supported by policies relating to equality, diversity, and inclusion, and had received training in these areas. This meant staff had knowledge and awareness about how best to support people with different protected characteristics and helped reduce the risk of discrimination. People were treated fairly and the support they received met their assessed needs and personal circumstances.

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.

Regular reviews helped ensure people and their relatives would be actively involved in making decisions about their future care. For example, if their needs increased or the focus of support changed.

At the time of our inspection, no-one was receiving end of life care. The registered manager told us they would work with other professionals for guidance and support if this was necessary.