Dorcas Care Ltd Also known as Sparcells Office

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 newly registered service. 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. Staff had completed training in person centred care. Relatives told us staff supported their family member in a person-centred way. People’s care plans contained information to support the delivery of person-centred care.

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. Leaders told us they had the benefit of being able to be flexible around people’s needs. For example, the manager told us how one person wanted to change their hours, so this was accommodated. There was a small staff team which consisted of the manager and nominated individual, so there was continuity of care.

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

One person did not have information about their communication preferences in their care and support plan. This meant there was a risk of staff not knowing how best to communicate with this person. However, the service did not have any employed staff, and care was currently being delivered by the registered manager, who knew the person well. Other people had clear information about their communication preferences and abilities. Leaders created easy read documents for people as and when these were needed.

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.

Leaders told us they held an initial review of people’s care 4 weeks after care began, and then this was subsequently reviewed every 6 months. The nominated individual commented, “We don’t want people to feel they have to give us positive feedback. We always ask if anything could be changed.” Relatives confirmed that reviews took place and people were involved in these. One relative told us, “The 3 of us meet at [relative’s] house and discuss her care and [manager] always asks for feedback, which has always been good.”

There was a detailed complaints policy which outlined procedures, including information about how to raise a complaint with external services such as Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the local authority.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Leaders supported people to access healthcare services when the need arose. For example, the registered manager had sought health advice for one person who was showing some signs of health deterioration. People had information about the equipment they used in their care plans to safely access their environment.

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. Leaders had completed training in equality, diversity and human rights. Relatives did not raise any concerns in relation to discrimination and told us their family member was treated with respect at all times. One relative commented, “[Registered manager] also respects [family member’s cultural and religious needs,which is very important to our family.”

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.

People’s care and support plans lacked information about their end of life wishes or discussions. This meant there was a risk of staff not having the information to effectively support a person if they approached the end of their life. Leaders told us they were in the process of obtaining this information. Additionally, leaders had not completed training in end-of-life care. However, there was no one receiving end-of-life care at the time of the assessment.