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 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. People told us they felt involved in their care, that it was person-centred, and that adaptions were made as required and in partnership with them. One person who used the service said, “We sit and review (the care) from time to time but to be honest, if anything changes, then we meet there and then.” People’s feedback showed they received person-centred care however the care records we viewed did not consistently reflect this; this requires improvement.

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’s feedback told us staff understood their needs and supported them in receiving continuity of care. Staff were also able to demonstrate this though discussion. People gave us examples of how the service worked flexibly to meet their needs. For example, so a person who used the service could attend a celebration, the service moved the person’s routine visit to accommodate this. The person’s relative said, “They [the service] are brilliant at this. I phoned up to change some visit times, and it was all done with no problems. Everything we have asked for they have catered for.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People told us this and records confirmed that. For example, people received rotas in the format they requested, and we saw there was an audio version of the service user guide. Additionally, people gave us examples of how staff adapted communication techniques to meet their needs. One relative of a person with specific communication needs said, “Staff have become quite expert at communicating with [family member].” Evidence showed the provider was meeting the Accessible Information Standard.

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 both informal and formal processes in place for people to provide feedback including regular surveys and review meetings. However, people told us they felt able and comfortable in providing feedback and/or raising concerns at any time in the knowledge they would be listened and responded to. One person who used the service said, “I asked if a visit time could be changed and they said, ‘no problem’ and did it straight away. They reissued the rota for me so I could see the change.” Records viewed confirmed people’s feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We heard many examples of where the service provided care and support at a time that suited people and in the event of an emergency. People told us the service was flexible in changing visit times and always accommodated this with no issues. There was an on-call service that people could access as required and the provider has processes in place to ensure staff could stay with people in the event of an emergency such as a medical event.

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. People told us the care they received met their needs and we saw staff received training in topics that often impacted the group of people they supported. The provider also understood the importance of working with other professionals to ensure people received the best care possible.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, however, this did not include at the end of their life. Whilst we received positive feedback about the care delivered to one person at the end of their life, all the care plans we viewed failed to include end of life care plans. Whilst we understand the service focused on supporting people to live better, healthier, and more independent lives, the provider needs to offer people the opportunity to discuss this aspect of care so it can be planned and met should the time come and should they so wish.