Care Quality Services Sutton

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 were safe and protected from avoidable harm. 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.

Records showed care was highly personalised to people’s individual needs and wishes. They included examples of people’s different routines, nutritional preferences and personal choices. We identified an example of one person who had a very specific morning routine, which the provider adhered to and supported the person with.

People and their relatives told us their care was delivered in line with their individual needs.

The registered manager confirmed they prioritised people’s unique choices in their care delivery through a number of ways. They maintained contact with people’s relatives to ensure they responded quickly to changes in people’s wishes and convened meetings to discuss how to manage these quickly. Staff told us they prioritised people’s choices in their care on a daily basis.

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. We saw records contained details of people’s diverse needs. We reviewed the records of one person who had specific religious and cultural needs and saw the provider took action to ensure these were met.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. They asked questions during the initial assessment to find out whether people had any particular needs regarding the format of information. We saw information was available in easy read, large print and braille for those who needed it.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider had a number of ways where people could give feedback. For example, through their complaints policy, spot checks and feedback forms. Complaints were reviewed and responded to appropriately. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. The registered manager told us they were available on the phone to respond to any changes in need and were flexible in the delivery of their care to meet any requests, for example if people had healthcare appointments they needed to attend. People confirmed the provider was flexible in their care delivery and could deliver care when they needed it. One person told us “If I have an appointment or something, they can switch things around for me. They are flexible.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The provider asked questions during the assessment process about people’s needs and whether they had any particular reasons that might make them vulnerable to experiencing inequality, for example language barriers or fluctuating capacity. They took action to overcome these potential barriers. This included ensuring they followed proper practices in making decisions in people’s best interest or seeking to appoint staff from a variety of backgrounds to support people in their language where possible.

Staff were trained in equality and diversity and bullying and harassment, to ensure they could identify and report inappropriate behaviour.

The provider was able to support people 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. At the time of our assessment there were no people using the service who were in receipt of end of life care. However, the registered manager assured us they were able to provide this care where needed through effective care planning and joint working with multi- disciplinary professionals.