Gemcare South West Plymouth

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 remained requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences, although care plans had improved.

People did not always receive support from staff who knew them and what mattered to them. This meant their care could be task focused and rushed. Some staff did not follow routines that mattered to people.

When people’s regular care staff visited them, they were happy with the care. This was because they had built relationships with them. Regular care staff knew them well and always met their needs.

People and relative told us they had been involved in the care planning process. People’s care plans had been reviewed and had improved. They contained more person-centred information, were accurate and up to date. People’s daily routines and preferences were detailed.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider had recently created new visit runs to reduce travel times. Electronic call monitoring records showed visit times had improved. However, there was a small number of short visits (11% of visits during a one month period were less than half the planned length).

Several people told us when staff did not stay for the full time, their care was not delivered as planned.

The change to the visit runs meant some people had been allocated different staff. One person was unhappy about this change and told us, “I just seem to get into a routine with my carers and then suddenly it all changes and I get a whole new set who I have to work with to show them what I need.”

Another person said, “Recently it’s really improved I now have regular carers and they usually come at the same time each day.”

The manager told us they were monitoring the new runs and visit times and working on getting the new visit runs right for everyone.

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

At the time of this assessment, the manager told us no one receiving care required information in an alternative format or additional communication support.

The service had an Accessible Information Standard policy. Policies and care plans could be downloaded in different languages and in large print. The service had access to a braille printer. Information was available in easy read formats.

Care plans included information for staff to know how to best communicate with people. Staff described people’s communication needs and supported people to express themselves.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, although engagement had improved.

Records of complaints showed actions had been taken. The manager told us any concerns raised with them had been resolved.

However, some people and relatives did not feel listened to. Comments included, “I have spoken to the office about this but nothing changes” and “I don’t contact the office unless I need anything especially at a weekend as the calls go through to another office in Blackpool. And I don’t feel confident they will know me so I don’t bother ringing no matter what it’s about.”

Other relatives said, “We don’t have a lot of contact with the office but when we do it has always been a positive experience, what we have rung about has been sorted” and “The company is very good if we want to change the time of their calls. I just ring up and the time is changed.”

Following the previous assessment, quality assurance visits and phone calls were now being carried out. Where issues had been identified, these had been addressed. The service was working on completing these for everyone.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Oversight of visit timings had improved. More people were receiving their visits close to their planned times which meant they could plan their day. However, some people were still experiencing short visits which meant their care was not delivered as planned.

The provider did not always make sure people had consistent experiences and outcomes, particularly with certain care staff.

People were happy with their regular staff but told us some other staff left early and did not follow their care plans. When people told us about their experience of the service, it was evident some people had better outcomes than others.

Staff and management supported people to ensure they had access to services they needed. The manager gave examples of when they had liaised with other professionals to support people in their home environment. For example, if a person needed increased visits or equipment in their homes.

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 our assessment, staff were not supporting anyone with end of life care.

Care plans now included a section on future planning to support people with life changes and end of life wishes. People’s wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation were also recorded.