Best Care Co

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 and were supported to make decisions about how their care was delivered.

Care plans reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and risks, and staff understood how to support people in a way that promoted dignity, independence and wellbeing.

Care records contained detailed assessments, and risk assessments were personalised and included clear guidance for staff, for example how to support people who were visually impaired or living with dementia. Managers and senior staff had a detailed understanding of people’s needs and regularly reviewed daily care notes to respond to changes in people’s wellbeing.

People and relatives consistently told us care was kind, respectful and tailored. One relative said carers were “very attentive… kind and compassionate and respectful of people’s dignity and choices”.

Although 3 care plans were overdue at the time of the visit, managers had clear plans in place to complete reviews, including where delays were linked to hospital admission or family availability.

The provider delivered care that was coordinated, consistent and responsive to people’s changing needs.

Managers worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure continuity of care, including during hospital admissions and when risks increased. The provider reviewed discharge plans and updated care and risk assessments before people returned home from hospital

Care plans showed evidence of multi-disciplinary working with GPs, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, district nurses and mental health teams. Where possible, people were supported by a small, consistent staff team to promote continuity and reduce anxiety.

Health professionals told us the provider worked collaboratively and was responsive. One professional said staff were “open and keen to work collaboratively” and that “patient centred care [was] at the heart of what they do”. Another professional told us the registered manager and carers were “always available and responsive” and managed complex situations safely and professionally.

The provider made sure people and their representatives received clear, accessible and timely information about their care and knew what to expect from the service. Information was adapted to meet people’s communication needs.

Care records included consent documentation and clearly set out care tasks and risk management guidance. Staff described how they used the electronic care system to access up-to-date information before visits and to record care accurately. Managers monitored records daily to ensure information remained current.

The provider followed the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). For example, one person with a sensory impairment received weekly schedules in large print, while another preferred information to be shared in print and written in a diary.

Relatives told us information and documentation were “very clear and informative” and that they knew what to expect from the care being provided.

The provider listened to people and their representatives and involved them in decisions about care and treatment.

People’s views were respected and acted on, and managers were approachable and responsive. People and relatives told us they were involved in care planning and received regular updates. A relative told us managers were visible and responsive, and that they knew how to raise concerns if needed.

Staff told us managers were easy to talk to and listened to concerns. Staff described managers as transparent and supportive. The provider planned to strengthen formal feedback systems by introducing regular surveys for people and their relatives and staff.

The provider supported people to access the service in a fair and inclusive way.

Assessments considered people’s individual circumstances, protected characteristics and communication needs to ensure care could be delivered safely and effectively.

The provider supported people with a range of different needs. Assessments identified risks and reasonable adjustments, such as adapting care tasks, using consistent carers and providing additional support during visits. Managers carefully managed staffing capacity and recruitment to ensure new care packages could be delivered safely without compromising quality.

Care planning showed people were matched with carers based on needs and preferences, and people were involved in choosing who supported them, including through face-to-face or video introductions where appropriate.

The provider made sure people experienced consistently positive outcomes regardless of their needs or circumstances.

Care planning and delivery focused on promoting independence, safety and quality of life. Care records showed people were supported to remain active and engaged in their communities, with activities tailored to individual interests and abilities. Risk management plans balanced safety with independence, particularly for people living with dementia or sensory impairment.

Relatives consistently described positive outcomes. One relative told us carers could “pre-empt things to ensure my [relative] is comfortable and cared for”.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of promoting dignity, choice and independence during visits.

People and relatives, where appropriate, were consulted about end-of-life care. Where people were willing to discuss this, their wishes and preferences were documented in their care plans. Staff also respected people’s wishes if they did not wish to discuss this.

Care records recorded discussions and DNAR decisions (Do Not Attempt Resuscitation). This information was highlighted in the electronic care record so carers could easily access this information.