Agape Care Solutions

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 service 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 service 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 care plans provided person-centred guidance directing staff how to support people with their oral health, personal care and medical conditions. Care plans were reviewed regularly with people and relatives. The provider had an electronic care planning system which meant information was updated or changed instantly. Staff told us they had enough information about people’s needs to provide safe care.

The service 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 told us there was continuity of care. A staff member said, “There is good continuity of care as we are grouped in teams with each team being a regular for a particular service user.” Health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service. One professional told us the service was, “very responsive” and another professional said, “They have been proactive in reaching out for advice [when required].”

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

Communication was effective. We received positive feedback about the way the service communicated with people, staff and external professionals. People’s communication needs were detailed in care plans. We were assured this service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS is a law to make sure that people who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information they can easily read or understand.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service actively sought feedback from people and their relatives and had systems and processes to manage complaints. Information was used to shape the service and make changes. Relatives told us they felt confident if they complained, they would be taken seriously.

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

Relatives told us people were supported to access support from relevant health and social care professionals. The provider had an on-call service which enabled people to access care outside of usual working hours.

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.

Relatives were positive about the care and support provided. People were supported to engage in meaningful activities at home and in the community. Staff told us they had enough information to ensure people received safe care.

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.

People’s decisions about emergency treatment were recorded. People and relatives were provided an opportunity to discuss and plan end of life wishes. There was an established process for supporting people in the last days of their lives. At the time of this inspection, the service was not supporting anyone who was receiving care during the final stages of life.