Vintage Revelations Gloucestershire

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 as 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 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 changes in people’s needs.

People’s care records did not consistently provide personalised and detailed information about people’s preferred routines and how they wished to be supported by staff. For example, personalised information about people’s personal, oral care and grooming preferences were not always detailed. People and their relatives said they were not always involved in care plan reviews. One person said, “I don’t remember about care plans or reviews, no, no one from the office comes to see me.” However, others stated they had been involved in the development of their care plan.

However, staff described people’s individual needs, preferences and routines and provided examples of how they supported people in a personalised way. Relatives shared some staff were excellent but felt the consistency of staff delivery of care was variable. Some relatives commented they felt staff needed more training when supporting people who live with dementia and language barriers often impacted on people’s care.

People and their relatives raised concerns about the timeliness of their care calls. One relative explained, “There are 3 main problems – Timing, encouragement and care plan and we have had a lot of ups and downs”. They explained, “The timing is very bad – the care plan states that medicines are time specific and the agency do not meet the times for example in the morning they can arrive any time between 7am and 9am and [name] finds that very stressful.”
 

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 commissioned care model enabled the service to be adaptable and to cater for people’s wishes and extended support requirements. The provider had established approved electronic links with the GPs to access people’s medical notes. The registered managers explained access to the GP systems enabled the service to gain a real-time insight into people’s medical needs and specialist referrals and recommendations.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People's communication needs were assessed. The registered managers understood their responsibilities to identify, record, share and meet people’s communication needs. The provider explained information would be provided to people in an accessible format if required. However, the registered managers recognised more information about people’s communication needs should be clearly outlined in people’s care plans to assist staff in their verbal and written interactions with people.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Some people and their relatives told us they had not always been satisfied with communication from the managers about their concerns and felt the agreed resolution to their concerns had not been sustained. Some relatives reported experienced issues with communication from the office and unreturned phone calls.
 

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

Staff and managers worked with people and their relatives to ensure people accessed health and social care services as needed. However, some people’s care records required more details about their medical conditions and where to escalate symptoms of declining health.
 

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 received equality and diversity training. This assisted staff and managers in understanding the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes. The provider shared several case studies of how the service had supported people to improve their quality of life and how this positively impacted on people. For example, through staff’s person-centred approach and support, one person had been supported to overcome their fears and was encouraged to attend optician appointments. The registered manager told us this showed how they were supporting someone to take steps to improve their quality of life.

Staff supported people fairly and equally regardless of disability, health condition, communication needs, or background.
 

People were 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.

The registered managers explained they had processes in place to support people who required end of life care and spoke to people about their end-of-life care preferences. Some care plans reflected people’s ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) ‘status; however, records of people’s wish around their advance care planning or preferred outcomes were not fully documented.