CJ Noah Healthcare

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans did not reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Care plans lacked information regarding people’s preferences and individual risks. Important areas of information were missing or not fully up to date. For example, important information relating to people’s medication management and long-term conditions.

However, staff knew people well and 1 staff member told us, “When I provide care it’s whatever [people] want, they are feeling in charge of their lives, basically we are trying to help them continue living their lives as they were before.”

One person told us, “Because I have the same carers, I don’t have to go through everything, every time and we have got to know one another well and we work well together.”

Due to the staffing shortages the provider was unable to provide care that was joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care plans did not include the views of relatives where appropriate, and documentation did not include sufficient information to enable staff to understand the needs of the people they support.

However, people had the same familiar carers that knew them well. The provider worked alongside people’s relatives and shared relevant information to ensure that appropriate support was arranged when required.

There was insufficient information in care plans about people’s communication needs. This meant it wasn’t clear if the provider supplied information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

However, the service user handbook provided important information including how people could complain. The provider said this could be provided in different formats. The registered manager told us how they had used laminated picture cards with someone to help them communicate.

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.

One person told us, “I have the number for the office, and I see [registered manager] regularly so if I had any concerns or problems [registered manager] is easy to get hold of.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider made referrals to health services for people, for example podiatry and occupational therapy.

The provider supported people to arrange appointments and signposted people to services for example befriending.

Staff told us, “We have the contact details on the care planning application with family and GP details, pharmacy etc, all there in case I need anything”.

People generally found the care to be reliable and flexible. However, due to staffing shortages care call schedules had to be temporarily amended. This meant people did not always have their care call at a time that suited them. Communication with other services was not recorded in care plans.

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 received training in equity and diversity. This was reflected in discussions with staff.

At the time of this assessment the provider did not support anyone who was in receipt of end-of-life care. However, there were no templates to record advanced care or end of life care planning and there were no records of anyone’s advanced wishes. Staff had not completed end of life training.