Riseup Healthcare 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. People told us that the received consistently good quality of service which met their needs in a person-centred manner. They said the provider was flexible and call times were adjusted when required. One person’s calls were arranged around their hospital appointments, meaning on certain days of the week, their daily call was adjusted to the evening rather than the morning to accommodate this.

Staff told us that they usually had enough time to deliver person-centred manner. One staff member told us, “I usually have enough time, which allows me to deliver quality care without feeling rushed.” They told us that if they felt rushed, the management team was always very responsive in reassessing people’s needs or negotiating extra time for people when commissioned by another stakeholder.

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. People told us that the service knew their needs and choices, including social and cultural needs. One relative told us, “The staff try and get my [relative] into the garden as they have always liked this.” Staff told us that they knew people’s needs and supported them to make their own choices and to maintain their independence. The provider showed us evidence of supporting people to access their local community. One staff member told us, “We want people to be able to stay in their own homes for as long as safely possible.” We saw from care plans that people’s needs had been holistically assessed, including information on their health and wellbeing needs, and that this not only enabled staff to support them but also to share information with other professionals, as required, to aid continuity of care, support, and treatment.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People told us the service was good at communicating with them, and the relatives we spoke with praised how they were kept informed of their family member’s care and well-being. Staff agreed that the information they needed was easily accessible and was generally accurate and up to date.

The service’s policies and procedures were always available to staff via an electronic application, and the staff we spoke with had knowledge of how and where they accessed information. We saw that there was a good level of information available to people who used the service, their relatives, and staff. For example, a detailed service user guide was in place that provided people with information on the service, what to expect, and how to complain. We also saw that some information was available in easy-read formats.

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. The provider had completed a people and staff survey, which allowed people and their relatives to give their opinion on the service. The people we spoke to told us they would recommend the service and had not felt the need to raise complaints or concerns. Staff told us they felt listened to and could speak to the management team. One person told us, “Management is approachable, supportive, and open to feedback.” They told us that supervisions were a two-way conversation and that the management team was responsive to feedback and comments. Staff told us they had regular meetings that were an open forum for discussion and that they felt comfortable in raising concerns, making suggestions, or discussing difficult topics. The service completed regular reviews with people and gave them opportunities to provide feedback and suggestions. Where shortfalls were identified, action plans were put in place to address these. A complaints policy and procedure were in place, and these were appropriate.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us that they generally received the care they needed daily and that staff were mostly on time for their calls. A relative told us that, “They [staff], always turn up, and we have not had any cancelled calls.” The service worked around people’s health appointments.

Staff told us that people generally received the care they needed at the agreed time. Staff told us the service was good at making people know when staff were running late and ensuring people received their care calls. Call time data showed people generally received the care they needed at the agreed time. The service used an electronic system for staff to record their call times, and this was mostly used appropriately. We did see some occasions where staff had forgotten to complete this or could not be due to network issues, but the service was aware and had discussed this with staff during staff meetings. The registered manager assured us that where this happened, there was a notification and a prompt to immediately verify the call actually happened.

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 service supported people who are most likely to experience inequality in outcomes, such as those people living with dementia, a mental health condition, or a learning disability, for

example. Relatives told us that the staff were reliable and friendly. Staff told us that the provider adapted calls and travel time to ensure people received a consistent service. Staff, however, commented that given the rural nature of their calls, they needed the management to be more receptive to conversations around travel time.

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. People told us that the service had supported them to manage the transition from hospital discharge to safe rehabilitation within their own home. We saw examples where the number of care calls per day had been reduced as people regained their ability and independence. No one was receiving end-of-life care at the time of this assessment; however, staff had received training in delivering this, and the service had processes in place to provide such care should it be required. The care plans indicated where people had advance directives and respect forms. Advance directives are decisions people make about their care and treatment in the event they become unwell