Your Quality Care Services Limited

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.

People told us they received person centred care. Comments included, “They do everything I want them to do” and “[Staff] all do their job properly.” Care plans had information to support the delivery of person-centred care. For example, people had detailed information about their daily routines recorded.

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. People benefited from a small and stable staff team to promote continuity of care. People told us care visit times could be amended if they wished which allowed people to be flexible where needed. Relatives told us the service worked well with them to provide care which was joined up. One relative commented, “I told them everything I wanted them to support with and they do.”

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

People had information in their care plans about their communication needs. People told us staff communicated well. Staff met the accessible information standard by ensuring communication methods were discussed during the initial assessment stage, to ensure staff could meet people’s needs.

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.

People knew how to complain. They told us they would contact the office and felt able to complain without any repercussions. People were asked for feedback about their care. There was a complaints policy which outlined procedures and relatives told us they were aware of these. This included clear details and contact information for how to complain and contact details for the local social care ombudsman and CQC.

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

The manager told us, “Where client’s need change, we advocate on their behalf when necessary to arrange reviews, these may include Occupational Therapy, District Nurse, GP, Pharmacy. All completed with the client’s consent. We liaise with healthcare services during the initial assessment, implementing the care plan and again when the care plan is reviewed. As part of the client’s care plan, we may support with travel to and from appointments to ensure they can access services as they need and wish.” We did not receive any concerns in relation to how staff supported people to access the care they needed.

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.

Staff had completed training annually in equality and diversity. There was an equality and diversity policy which was in line with legislation and up to date. Staff understood the Equality Act and Human Rights legislation. The manager told us, “We have at times received requests for staff providing care be of the same religion, where possible we have been able to accommodate.”

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.

People had some information within their care and support plan about end-of-life plans, however this lacked detail. The provider told us they used an additional end-of-life plan when end of life care was initiated which contained more detail, and we saw evidence of one of these plans.

Additionally, staff had not received training on end-of-life care. However, the service was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care at the time of inspection.