Body&Soul Assistance, Admin.

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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 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.

There were no personalised care plans in place and records did not demonstrate how staff were providing care and support. Care records were very basic and focused on tasks rather than outcomes. This meant we could not confirm how personal preferences or changes were captured and shared. However, people told us they received person-centred care and staff embraced and followed the principle of this.

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.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s needs and continuity of care. People were supported with choice and accessing the local community.

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

There was a strong reliance on verbal communication. Whilst staff and the provider told us this was effective there were no care plans in place and other essential documentation was either not in place or current. Regular staff meetings were held to share information about the service.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider and the registered manager were the same person and there was no evidence of surveys or options for staff to be able to provide feedback in alternative routes. Team meetings were held but there was no evidence of staff involvement or voice. There had been no recorded complaints about the service. Staff told us the provider welcomed their feedback.

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

Staff provided individualised and flexible support to ensure people could access support and care when they needed it.

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.

The provider did not demonstrate an understanding about current and health and social care practices, including how to manage health care risks. This meant care planning and delivery was not tailored to ensure risks were managed. However, the service supported 1 person, and staff demonstrated an understanding of the inequalities and challenges they may face.

People were not always 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.

There was no evidence of advanced care planning. There were no recorded discussions about people’s future wishes or emergency care preferences. This meant staff did not have guidance on how to support people in line with their personal choices during a crisis, creating a risk their preferences and rights may not be respected.