Provision Care 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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.

The provider put people, including their relatives, where appropriate, at the centre of their care which included their preferences and choices. One person told us, “Yes, I am considered the most important person in my care. I say how I would like care to delivered and this is carried out how I have asked it to be.”

Records and feedback from people and staff showed people were supported by the continuity of a regular staff team. Some people had several care workers involved in their care. However, all of them knew people well which contributed contributing to consistent and personalised care provision.

Staff feedback told us their understanding of people’s current lives, needs and preferences and how these were met. One staff member was able to tell us detailed information about one person and how they delivered care and support in line with the current challenges they faced in their daily life.

People’s care plans included information about people’s care and treatment needs. People and relatives reported being fully involved in discussions and decisions regarding care planning.

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 staff team was balanced and stable, and they all knew people’s individual care and treatment requirements. This arrangement ensured people were provided with ongoing consistent and continuity of their care and treatment.

The registered manager told us of their ongoing positive working relationships with other health and social care professionals that had been developed. Associated records indicated staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. The service was supported by the local GP surgery and a representative visited weekly.

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

A data protection policy and procedure was in place and followed. Discussions with the registered manager and staff assured us they understood the importance of treating and protecting people’s confidential information securely and sensitively.

Staff told us they conversed with people according to their individual communication needs that had been assessed and recorded in their plans of care. One staff member told us how they communicated with a person using tactile touch and how this guided and supported the person to undertake tasks for themselves that were realistic and in line with their current level of need and overarching support requirements. This approach was one of several methods of communication in place that assured us the service provider was on the whole meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard, ensuring that information and communication were tailored to meet individuals’ needs.

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 and staff were provided with opportunities to share their experience of the service. We reviewed recent satisfaction surveys for both people and staff. Accepting the service was small the feedback from both surveys showed a high response rate and satisfaction of the support people received and of staff views of the service. One person told us, “I regularly receive requests for feedback. I also share my views with staff and the manager. These are responded to, and I am listened to.”

The registered manager told us they were continually open to people and staff feedback by other means. They welcomed ‘ad hoc’ comments and suggestions from both cohorts of people.

The provider’s complaint policy was provided to people at the start of their care journey with the service. Records showed no complaints had been made to the service in the previous 12 months. We observed numerous ‘thank you’ cards which were displayed in the office.

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

Staff monitored and continually assessed people’s care and treatment ensuring any change in presentation were promptly identified and acted upon.

For example, when one person’s specific health condition varied on a regular basis the service sought input from the specialist health professional whose area of expertise related to this condition. More generally, contact and advice was sought from the respective GP practice assigned to the area where people lived.

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.

The management team worked well to support people to have equal access to their experience to achieve a positive outcome. A consistent approach was in place and emphasis on the importance of handovers between staff during the rotation of care workers enabled people to be provided with equity in care. This provided people with the same person-centred care from all staff they received care from. For example, enough time was afforded to all people so they could engage in meaningful conversations and stimulation without impacting upon the delivery of their structurally arranged care.

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.

Documents which were used by health professionals, such as out-of-hours doctors or emergency services, were readily available. These documents such as ‘Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment’ (ReSPECT) forms.

Staff had received end of life training. People’s plans of care included considerations and wishes at end of life where they had chosen to disclose them.