Joy2care

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’s specific needs were detailed in their care plans in a personalised, dignified and respectful way. Staff understood the importance of delivering person-centred care. For example, staff told us, “I support individuals with diverse cultural, religious, and personal needs by respecting their beliefs, preferences, and values. I ensure care is person-centred, promote inclusion, and make reasonable adjustments to support their dietary requirements, religious practices, communication needs, and cultural preferences.”

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.

Where it had been identified that people required continuity of care from staff who knew them well to support communication and reduce anxiety or agitation, we saw evidence that a consistent and dedicated team was in place to meet these needs.

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

People told us they felt the communication was good from staff and the provider. Where people had identified communication needs these were documented in care plans and people were matched with staff who could best communicate with them.

The provider told us they were able to provide information in alternative formats, such as large print, if needed. Communication aids were also used, such as alphabet mats, where required to ensure people were able to continue to communicate with staff.

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 a comprehensive complaints policy in place with a clear structure on how complaints should be processed. We saw evidence the provider had listened and responded to people who had raised concerns. People told us they felt listened to and didn’t have any complaints.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place and a commitment to ensure everyone they supported did not experience discrimination and staff supported people in an inclusive way. This was evident in the support provided by staff who gave examples on how they ensured people had access to the support they needed. Staff supported people to access the community and healthcare appointments when required.

Staff and leaders demonstrated an understanding of people who may be at greater risk of experiencing inequalities in care and outcomes. They used this information to tailor care, treatment and support to meet individual needs.

Staff provided examples of how they had supported people to access appropriate treatment where there had been challenges, helping to achieve positive outcomes. Feedback from people and their relatives was positive, with one relative telling us, “The care has significantly improved [relative’s] quality of life.”

People’s future wishes and preferences were not consistently documented within care plans. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance to support people with important life changes, including planning for the end of life.

The provider was able to describe examples of how to support individuals with future planning, such as funeral arrangements. However, we did not see consistent recorded evidence of this within care documentation. Records primarily reflected whether a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) was in place, rather than providing a broader overview of people’s wishes and preferences.

Where people received palliative care, risk assessments were in place, and included consideration of anticipatory medicines. However, wider planning for future care and support needs was not consistently documented.