Arca Healthcare Limited

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 service. This key question has been rated require improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 care records provided person-centred information about people’s needs.

Care plans and risk assessments did not always provide person-centred information about people’s needs. For example, where information was documented, it did not always contain sufficient guidance to ensure people’s individualised needs could be met. While they were reviewed with people and relatives, care plans and risk assessments were not effectively reviewed to ensure they remained current and reflected changing needs and preferences.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of the practical individualised support they provided people, which was supported by people and relatives’ feedback. The provider sought the views of people and relatives on occasions regarding the care people received through satisfaction telephone calls and visits.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up or supportive of continuity.

Processes were not in place to ensure people’s care records contained relevant and detailed information about how staff should meet people’s needs. This meant staff did not always have guidance relating to people’s needs to ensure they achieved positive outcomes.

Safety event records which detailed incidents of risk and harm were not always appropriately reported to CQC and the local authority. Reporting these incidents would have enabled greater joined-up working and greater understanding and learning. The provider’s failure to always report notifiable safety events to external partners meant people were at risk of their risks and needs not being known and investigated.

People and relatives told us staff understood the health and care needs of the people they supported.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Where people had identified communication needs, there was limited guidance in their care plans and risk assessments of how these could be met by staff. This meant people were at risk of their communication needs not being adequately catered for by the provider.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s communication needs, and the views of people and relatives supported this. One relative explained, “Staff understand how [my relative] communicates.” While another stated, “They [staff] are always talking to [my relative].”

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 were involved in their care planning processes, and people were provided with regular opportunities in which they could raise matters with the provider, such as via people satisfaction surveys.

People and relatives told us staff and leaders kept them informed about changes, with 1 relative saying, “I am invited to make any changes regarding the care they provide my [ relative].”

A complaints procedure was in place, and staff, people and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and they were confident these would be dealt with.

One person said, “If I had any problems I would speak with the Manager, who is fantastic.”
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care records did not always provide guidance about people’s needs, made limited reference to how people’s care had been informed by access to healthcare professionals, and they were not effectively audited to support care remaining appropriate and responsive.

People and relatives told us staff worked flexibly around people’s routines and health needs to ensure access to support.

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.

An equality and diversity policy was in place, and staff had received equality and diversity training, which meant the service was aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

Staff tailored support to people, so they had comparable experiences, regardless of disability, health condition, or background. For example, staff provided additional mobility support so people could access activities within their wider community.

People achieved outcomes comparable to others, including maintained independence, improved comfort and consistent access to social opportunities. People and relatives told usstaff treated people fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstrating equity in both experiences and outcomes.

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.

While people were not in receipt of end-of-life care at the time of the assessment, people’s care plans mostly did not include information on the longer-term wishes and preferences which could be important to them.

The provider acknowledged this information had not been captured and stated their intention to address the situation by reviewing people’s care plans with them and / or their relatives.