Complesso Healthcare Solutions Also known as Community Response Service

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 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 choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received person centred care. Care plans were developed, with the involvement of people where possible, to ensure care provided reflected people’s likes, dislikes and individual preferences. Where people were unable to direct care themselves those that were important to them were consulted so people’s life histories were known and understood.

Staff we spoke with knew people well and described them with fondness. They shared with us the individual aspects of people’s personalities and characters and told us how they took account of this when providing care and support.

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 supported people to become part of their communities and receive support from different services. Some people were supported to attend college or employment. Others received support to take part in activities in line with their interests or hobbies, including football or music.

Staff advocated for people and worked alongside external health care professionals to ensure they received support with health needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff understood people’s communication needs and provided information for people in a format people could understand. This included the use of pictures, easy read documents, or objects of reference.

There were process in place to assess people’s communication styles and needs and guidance was available in people’s care plans for staff to follow to ensure people were supported with the right information when they needed to make a decision.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns about their care or complain if they were unhappy with how staff supported them. A relative commented, “I know who I would speak to if I needed to.”

Service managers and the registered managers told us they were in contact with people regularly and used these times to identify if people were happy with the care they received. The management team told us the directors were also visible to people who were supported and knew people and understood their needs. Directors told us a quality team carried out spot checks to monitor the quality of care people received, this was particularly important where people were unable to raise a concern directly. The outcome of quality visits were reported directly to one of the directors to maintain impartiality. Any concerns were then addressed to ensure people’s care met their needs and was of the expected standard.

There was a complaints policy in place which staff and the management team were aware of.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff advocated for people or arranged for independent advocates to ensure people’s experience of care reflected their needs and wishes. Staff promoted people’s rights within their community by supporting them to participate within their local communities.

People had equity in experience and outcomes. Staff had undertaken training in equality and diversity and human rights. Where possible the registered managers tried to match staff who had shared cultural experiences or interests. One person’s staff team were recruited specifically with the aim of meeting the person’s cultural needs, which included food as well as their communication needs. Another person was supported by staff to change their pronouns so they were reflective of the person’s identity. They then co-produced their care plan alongside staff to ensure it reflected their preferred information. Care plans contained information about people’s interests, preferences and goals or outcomes.

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. There was no one in receipt of end-of-life care at the time of our assessment. However, there were systems in place to ensure people’s death was managed in a dignified way. Staff told us there was guidance available in people’s care plans to ensure they delivered person centred end of life care. This included working in partnership with external healthcare professionals and ensuring anticipatory medicines were available to manage people’s symptoms when required.One staff member told us, "Nobody is end of life at the moment, but we would have support from the community nurses."