Arm2Arm Support Ltd

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 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. People told us staff knew them well and how to meet their needs. Staff had received training in person centred care and told us how they supported people in this way. For example, one staff member said, “I ensure I deliver person-centred care by getting to know the person as an individual, including their preferences, needs, and values. I also take into account their protected characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation” and “I use their care plans and their feedback to tailor support to their specific needs.” People’s care plans contained information to support the delivery of person-centred care.

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 manager told us there was a small staff team, so they were able to provide continuity of care by having the same staff supporting each person. People told us this worked well and they appreciated this. Staff told us they supported people to access the community. One staff member said, “One of our [people] enjoys going out for walks when the weather permits. To support with this, I make sure that I take the [person] out as much as I can.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The manager told us, “All [people] at the moment are English speaking, however we are aware of language line [an interpreting service] and would discuss this in detail with the family if needed. Our marketing manager is making sure all information can be easily translated and is introducing easy read documents.” People had detailed information within their care plans about their communication preferences and abilities. Staff told us this information helped them understand how to meet people’s needs.

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 told us they knew how to complain or give feedback about their care. One person said, “I would mention it to [staff member] or email [manager]. We usually have a chat at the start of the call for any feedback.” There was a complaints policy to guide people how to complain and who to contact if they were not satisfied with the response. However, this did not include the contact details for the service, CQC, the local authority, or the ombudsman. We raised this with the manager who told us they would address this.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The manager was aware of how people faced discrimination in care. This included supporting a person to obtain financial support. Staff told us people had access to equipment they needed to support them. One staff member said, “People are supported with walking frames, wheelchairs, hoists, or grab rails to help them move safely and maintain independence”, and “We use a range of aids and reasonable adjustments to ensure people can access their care effectively. These include mobility aids such as walking frames, hoists, and walking sticks, as well as adapted equipment such as raised toilet seats and specialist beds. [We also offer] flexibility around care calls.”

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. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff understood key legislation such as the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act. Staff said, “These laws together shape our care approach, making it person-centred and inclusive, and safeguarding individuals' rights, choices, and freedoms throughout their care journey.” People did not raise any concerns to us about discrimination.

People were not always 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. There was no information in people’s care plans about their plans for the future including end of life care. The manager told us they asked this question during the assessment process and that any specific wishes would be recorded. However, there was no information recorded within care plans to demonstrate this had been discussed or reviewed. This meant staff would not have all information or know what to do if that situation arose unexpectedly.

However, staff had completed training in end-of-life care. The manager told us, “We ask if there is a DNAR [do not attempt resuscitation] in place as part of onboarding, this is generally when the discussion begins, as clients haven’t thought of this previously.” We reviewed evidence of a positive testimonial from a family member regarding the care which was given to her relative who was on end-of-life care.