Bosun Care 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment of the provider’s previous registered location, we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good for the assessment of the provider’s homecare service. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 and their relatives confirmed they received person-centred care according to their needs, preferences and wishes. They told us their care staff were attentive to their needs and respected their decisions and choices about the care they wished to receive. One relative said their carer was very flexible and worked around them. One relative said, “[carers name] has taken [service users name] out. It gives me a break and takes pressure off me.”

The registered manager told us they were working with staff to enhance their record-keeping skills to reflect the care and the support they provided to people each day. This would allow the registered manager to have improved and consistent oversight of people’s care needs and any concerns relating to people’s risks and the delivery of care.

Staff provided several examples of the people they supported to live a life of their choice such as their preferences around personal care and meals. One staff member said, “My job is to give them [people] the best life. Make sure they are safe, well fed and looked after, we do what they want.”

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 knew people well and were aware of people’s needs and risks. They worked flexibly with people’s relatives to ensure continuity of care and to ensure people had access to health care services to meet their needs.

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

People's communication needs were assessed. Information about people's speech, visual and hearing impairments was recorded which assisted staff in understanding people's communication needs and preferred methods of communication. For example, staff were prompted to speak to people with cognitive impairments using short sentences and use pictorial clues.

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.

Whilst people said they had not received a ‘welcome pack’ from the provider; they were aware of how to raise concerns and complaints. The registered manager said all complaints would be investigated in line with the provider’s policy and any learnings would be considered and acted on.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback via weekly phone calls, reviews, home visits and scheduled quality assurance checks.

One person told us; “[name of homecare manager] calls me regularly to check everything is OK. They have been very supportive.”

Staff said they fully involved people and their families in decisions about their care and any changes required to improve people’s safety. One staff member said, “We can share ideas. I may suggest something different to families if I think it is going to help such as new equipment or mention it to the homecare manager.”

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

People were supported to access health and social care services as needed. Staff supported worked collaboratively with people and their relatives to overcome barriers to access services in a timely manner.

Staff and leaders mainly 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 service encouraged feedback from people about the quality of care and support to confirm their support needs were being met and to review their experiences of the service. Most people said they received care and support which met their required outcomes. However, one person felt some staff did not fully understand their specific needs and they required a lot of coaching to understand their needs and views about living with a disability.

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.

The registered manager explained they had assumed sensitive conversations with people about planning for their future had taken place during people’s initial assessment. However, records of these conversations were limited, and it was not clear how people wished to be supported during their final stages of life and the role and involvement of their family and health professional. There was inconsistency in the recording and status of Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) orders. Not all staff had been trained in palliative and end of life care.