Andrusida Care - Hampshire

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 service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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. Some people felt communication was not always effective to ensure all staff would know them as individuals.

Some parts of people’s care plans were person centred. However, there were no mention of people’s likes and dislikes for food, or people’s drink preferences, for example, in coffee, do they take milk and sugar, where staff were supporting people with these tasks.

For people’s health conditions information was not always personalised to that person and how their health condition affected them, instead containing generic information about the condition such as arthritis and diabetes.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had processes in place for staff to report incidents and near misses. This included reviewing and learning from incidents and adjusting people’s care accordingly to keep them safe. Staff confirmed they would report any concerns to the office straight away.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it.

While some care plans noted people’s preferred communication style; we were not assured the registered manager was aware of the requirement of this standard. The registered manager did not provide us with examples of how they supported people to receive information in a format that was accessible to them. For example, for 1 person who had learning difficulties their care plan did not included information about their preferred communication style and whether they needed any communication support to enable decision making, support and promoting their independence.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider had a complaint policy and process to manage complaints. Records showed people when people raised concerns, they had been responded to in line with the provider’s policy and people were happy with the outcome.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had equality and diversity policies in place. Staff completed equality and diversity training, which helped to ensure they understood the potential barriers to accessing care people may face and how they could be supported to overcome them. This helped to ensure people could access care and support when they needed, promoting equality and protecting their rights.

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. Staff told us how they treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff told us they would report any concerns to management.

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. At the time of inspection no one was receiving end of life care. Should end of life care be required the registered manager was confident this would be provided in line with the person’s wishes. Training had been provided for all staff and policies and procedures were in place for end of life care to support staff.