Kope-Medics 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 inspection for this service. At this inspection, this key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 they felt their care was person centred and tailored to the specific needs of individuals. One person told us, “I asked to create a checklist at the start of the [visit] I contributed to creating this and we are using this now.” People and their relatives told us if their care needs changed, they would contact the office to speak to someone about adjusting their care and support.

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 provider worked well with schools and colleges to ensure people’s continuing support needs were met when they attended these places for their education. We also saw information to support the provider worked with hospitals, social care professionals and GPs to help support people. People and their relatives told us staff supported them to attend a range of appointment. The information we saw supported that the provider worked well with people and their relatives to ensure continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and their relatives told us they had access to care plans. People and their relatives also had health passports which were pictorial and contained information in an easy-to-understand format. The provider had an accessible information standard policy in place. People’s care plans documented people’s communication requirements. People told us they received information in a format that was easy for them to understand. We received comments like, “Easy to understand, I will answer back if I think it is wrong.” and “Easy to understand, they are willing to go through things if I want.”

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 knew how to raise complaints with the management team if needed. People and their relatives told us they would contact the office if they had a concern or complaint or would require a change in their care package. Staff told us they felt they were involved with the running of the service, and any comments or suggestions they made in regard to this was taken seriously by the management team.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had health passports in place for people. These held information about people’s complex care needs, behaviours of distress and sensory and mobility requirements.

People told us they were supported with access to care support and treatment. One person told us, “Staff stay with [relative] at holiday club for any extra curricular activities. [Relative] would not be able to do this without them.”

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 supported people with their care needs as required. People told us they did not feel discriminated against, and they received the appropriate care and support required. Staff knew people well enough to understand their equality related needs and to ensure appropriate care and support was delivered.

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 their end-of-life care. Care plans did have a section for end-of-life details to be documented, but we found these were not always completed. On 1 care plan, we found a typographical error which implied the person may have been on end-of-life care when they were not. This was brought to the attention of the management team, and the correction was immediately made. All the people we spoke to told us they had not discussed important future life changes with the provider. This left people at risk of staff not knowing how to support people in line with their wishes in relation to advanced care and support needs. We raised this with the provider. They told us people, and their relatives were largely concentrating on long-term and adult goals rather than eld of life planning. While the provider did have an end-of-life policy in place, Kope-Medics Ltd was not supporting anyone on end-of-life care at the time of the inspection.