8 Cosway Court

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 supported them in a way which was person centred, such as by supporting them to achieve their goals. All staff had completed training on person centred care. Staff had a good understanding of what person-centred care and gave examples of how they would apply this in their role. One staff member told us, “Person-centred care for me is shifting away from producing the same output every time regardless of the individual. Taking the time to know the person you’re caring for; their background, food preferences, their family and what makes them, well, them.”

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. People told us staff were flexible around their care. For example, one person said; “Let’s say if I have an appointment, I tell them a day before and they change my call times.” People were supported by a small staff team which promoted continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The manager told us they would use a range of communication methods if needed. The manager said, “We would use easy read documents, pictures, language interpreters or app, it depends on people’s capacity.” Leaders told us people were provided with a service user guide at when they began receiving support, and people confirmed this.

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 if needed. They told us they had no concerns or complaints but felt leaders were approachable. One person said, “They always ask for feedback, if I feel any [staff] are not doing their job, I have to let them know.” There had not been any complaints since the service registered with us, and there was a complaints policy which clearly outlined procedures, including the contact details for CQC and the Local Social Care Ombudsman.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us staff supported them to access healthcare appointments. One person said, “Staff come with me and support me at hospital appointments.” One person told us staff supported them to keep their environment tidy to promote access around their home.

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 human rights. The manager told us, “Staff are not to speak own language, [people] need to know what you are saying.” People did not raise any concerns about discrimination.

Staff had not completed training on end-of-life care. This meant staff may not be able to support people effectively at the end of their lives. However, the service was not supporting anyone on an end-of-life care package at the time of the assessment.

There was some information within people’s care plans about whether people had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation [DNACPR]. People also had information about their goals and aspirations. However, there was no further information about any special requests or preferences.