Newday Healthcare Professionals 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 changed in people’s needs. People and relatives did not always feel involved in their care. Although people told us staff were accessible to discuss their care, not all relatives felt they were involved in the care planning and decision-making process.

Staff told us they knew people well. Staff worked well with people to understand how they wished to be supported and promoted positive outcomes for them. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their care needs and the support they required as individuals. However, people’s care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. A person told us they were receiving care from the same regular staff, so they received continuity of care. Staff confirmed they had a regular working pattern, and they were supporting people they knew well. A relative told us, “We usually have the same carers coming in unless someone is on leave.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us the person had access to a written care plan in their home and the relative confirmed this. However, information in the care plan lacked detail, was not always accurate or up to date. The provider did not assess or record the person’s communication needs in their initial assessment or care plan. As a result, the person may not have received information in a way they could understand, which could affect their ability to engage with staff, make informed decisions, and participate fully in their care.

The service 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. A relative told us, “I feel fully involved in [relative’s] care and I always get asked for suggestions. I have not had to raise any concerns or complaints, but I am sure they would get addressed if I did have to.”

The registered manager sent surveys to relatives and people using the service and health professionals to gather feedback about the service. However, the results had not been analysed for themes and trends.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Most people and relatives told us they had access to all the services they needed. The registered manager told us regular meetings were held with all staff to ensure appropriate referrals were made in a timely way when needed.

We received positive feedback from a healthcare professional.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people had access to the right services when they needed them. However, this was not always reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments.

People told us they were supported to access the healthcare they needed such as visits from the GP practice, district nurses and palliative care team.

Staff confirmed they had completed training in equality and diversity. Staff were aware of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act acknowledging diversity and valuing differences.

Staff ensured people had access to healthcare to maintain their wellbeing. Where indicated, people were supported to attend specialist health appointments for continued monitoring and treatment. The service had developed good relationships with their GP practice and district nurse team.

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. Not all care plans included information and discussions around making informed decisions about their end of life wishes.

Staff had not received training in end of life care. This meant they may not have had the skills or confidence to provide effective, compassionate and person-centred support to people approaching the end of their lives.