Scodef Care

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 was the firstinspectionfor the service. This key questionhas been rated requires improvement.This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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. Care plans and risk assessments lacked the personalised detail staff needed to understand people’s preferences and provide consistent support. For example, some plans contained contradictory or incomplete guidance about the type of support required during nutrition, mobility or personal care. People and relatives told us staff were kind and tried their best, but this was not always supported by clear written information. Staff we spoke with described encouraging choice and independence; however, the gaps in records meant this was not always planned or delivered in a person centred way.Following inspection feedback the provider took action to remove historic information from care records and told us they had ensured that people and their relatives had been involved in the development and review of their care records.

The provider made sure people usually received care that met their needs, and staff understood how to respond to changes in routine day to day situations. People and relatives told us staff generally attended on time, and the service attempted to provide consistent carers, which supported continuity. Staff described liaising informally with families and external professionals, ensuring care remained joined up. However, care records were not always updated following changes, which meant the provider could not always demonstrate that care was coordinated effectively.

Staff shared information with people in ways that were generally understood and aligned with their needs. People told us they knew how to contact the office, and staff said they used the care app to keep up to date with planned tasks. The service provided basic information in care folders, including contact details and complaint routes. However, information for some people who had communication needs lacked accessible formats or clarity, which limited the provider’s ability to consistently meet individual information needs.

The provider did not always ensure people’s experiences and views shaped their care. While some people said staff listened to them and responded respectfully, there were delays in resolving concerns such as timing issues or inconsistencies in support. Records showed that reviews had been overdue and updates were not always made after changes were identified. This meant people were not consistently involved in shaping their care or in decisions that affected their daily routines.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the right care,support or treatment at the right time. Although staff advocated for people informally, gaps in care planning and monitoring reduced the service’s ability to identify barriers or respond proactively. Some people experienced delays or inconsistent arrangements for support, and the service did not always record or analyse access related issues. This limited the provider’s oversight of inequalities in access.

The provider did not always ensure people had equitable experiences or outcomes. Although staff described treating everyone fairly, governance systems did not reliably identify where people might be receiving inconsistent care or having poorer outcomes. Care plans contained missing or conflicting information, meaning staff could not always support people in ways that met their assessed needs. This reduced the provider’s ability to monitor or respond to inequalities in people’s day to day experiences.

The provider sent an annual quality assurance questionnaire to people using the service to gather their feedback and views. The results from the survey sent out in August 2025 had been collated and showed that along with key strengths and positive feedback there were areas for improvement and recommendations, which did not show how these were implemented and embeded.
 

The provider did not always make sure people’s future needs and preferences were understood or planned for. While some people had end of life information on file, others had no clear documentation explaining their wishes or what mattered to them. Reviews were not consistently completed, and changes in people’s circumstances were anticipatory, and people could not be assured that their preferences would always be respected. These were not always reflected in care plans. This meant planning for future needs was reactive rather than proactive. The training matrix confirmed staff had been trained in end of life care.