Office 510 Kingsfield Close, NN5 7QS

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 questiongood. At thisassessmentthe rating hasremainedgood.

Good:This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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. Care plans were inconsistent. These were devised from information shared during pre-admission assessments before people were discharged from hospital and from information shared by staff who were supporting people. Where people had been supported with long term care packages their plans were more detailed and contained person-centred details and preferences for care. Other plans were limited in their personalisation. There was no system in place to work with people to ensure their care plans accurately reflected their needs and choices.The impact on people was minimal as staff were skilled and knowledgeable about how to help them. They built good relationships with the people they supported and got to know what they liked and disliked.

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.The service worked within a Discharge to Assess framework, where people receive short-term care packages following a discharge from hospital. The service worked closely with hospital staff and social workers to facilitate a smooth transition from hospital to home and then to identify whether on-going care was required at the end of the short-term support. Where the service had capacity, people were able to choose to remain when the care provider longer term. Where people had relatives involved in their care, they were enabled to be an integrated part of the team around the person.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.The Registered Manager had a good understanding of the Accessible Information Standard-a legal requirement for NHS and adult social care services to ensure people with disabilities, impairments, or sensory loss can access and understand information and receive communication support where required. People told us they had no issues understanding information provided by the service. The Registered Manager told us “At referral we would have identified people’s communication needs.” People were encouraged to use hearing aids and glasses where this would aid communication.Staff told us “People’s communication needs vary. I support them using clear language, gestures, visual aids or devices, and by being patient and ensuring they understand.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People told us they were asked for their feedback and felt they were able to raise concerns about the service, if they had them. One person told us they had recently received a survey asking for formal feedback on the service. However, they were not supported to be active participants in the care planning process after the initial assessment. The Registered Manager told us that the care pack they leave in people’s homes contains all the contact details required to enable people to share their views, feedback and complaints. They told us that complaints are responded to within seven days and people are signposted to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if they wish to escalate their concern.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The Registered Manager told us they, or the clinical lead, are always available to be contacted by people and staff should that be needed. People felt able to get support if 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. Staff told us “Sometimes challenges like staff shortages, high workloads, or limited resources can make it harder to provide care, but we manage these by prioritising safety and seeking support from the team or management.” Staff felt confident about understanding people’s equality needs and felt able to meet them.If there were any issues, they felt able to raise these to their manager.

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. Whilst people were supported to consider their future care needs when the short-term care package was coming to an end, they were not always supported to consider unexpected life changes and events. Not everyone had end of life care plans in place. However, people told us they felt that they were supported to consider what outcomes for care they would like to achieve.