Carers Break Community Interest Company

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 remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

Peoples care plans included and detailed guidance for staff on how to meet people’s specific needs. All staff were able to access this information digitally via a secure app, additional paper-based records were available when required. Staff told us, “All the information we need is on the app” and “The co-ordinators phone staff and let them know about changes and what now needs doing.”

During our home visits, we observed staff used techniques described in people’s care plans while offering support. Regular reviews were held with people to help ensure the care provided continued to meet their needs. People told us, “Usually things are run past us, I’m not always aware that it is part of the care plan and am not dissatisfied with that.” Care plans included a social inclusion assessment, so people were fully supported to participate in everyday activities.

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 service focused on supporting people to live as independently as possible and recognised the value of continuity of care staff and trusting relationships enabling people’s independence. People told us, “There have been a few changes [named carer] changed their hours and more staff visited, but no major problems and [relative] is kept informed” and “[Named carer] is popular and I do prefer continuity” and “I have 8 hours on a Sunday to go to church in a taxi, my [named carer] stays throughout the service, we have a cup of tea downstairs, then order another taxi and go and have lunch together.”

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

We saw people’s care plans reflected any communication needs they had and gave clear details on how to support them effectively. Staff had had been trained to communicate effectively by using some Makaton, hand gestures, picture boards and lip reading. Communication styles were taught as part of the induction process.

Professionals were complimentary of the service’s communication and the quality of information they received one said, “Communication is consistently excellent, they always make time for discussion and engagement.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff had not always told people what had changed as a result of any feedback.

People and relatives told us they could contact the office and managers if they needed to raise an issue and we saw examples of complaints being responded to. However, the provider did not have a complaints log to consistently reflect what, if any, actions had been taken to mitigate or improve people’s outcomes. One relative told us, “We had no access to complaints processes but could muddle through.” This indicated information about how to complain was not always clear or accessible.

The provider had not carried out any surveys to gather feedback on people’s experiences, staff opinions and to monitor the services performance.

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

People were supported to access health and social care services as required. Records showed staff routinely supported people to book and attend appointments with GPs and dentists and to access more specialist services if needed.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. We observed staff treating people as unique individuals, using their preferred name.

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.

People and their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to any experience of discrimination and inequality from the service.

Staff told us they knew people well and they showed an awareness of people’s individual needs, their differences, likes, dislikes and preferences.

A member of the public contacted the provider to let them know about an interaction they had seen between staff and the young person with learning difficulties they were supporting. They commented, “They all seemed to be having fun together” And described the interaction as ‘wonderful.’

The provider had an equality and diversity policy. People's care plans were person centred and set out aspects of people's characteristics, beliefs and preferences to ensure people's protected characteristics and needs were respected.

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 provider had systems for documenting and recording people’s preferences in relation to how support should be provided at the end of people’s lives. At the time of the assessment Carers Break were not supporting anyone classed as end of life. Care staff told us, “We had end of life training but don’t have many people on this.”