Cera - Cumbria

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.

Each person had a care plan which was individual to themselves and reflected their needs.

We found evidence of the management team and staff supporting people with protected characteristics.

Care plans were reviewed regularly or when required if there had been any changes in need. Most families told us they were involved in the reviews of their relative’s care plans.

A family member told us, “The care does help, my [relative] stays positive and doesn’t get down, the carers help with that.”

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 provider was aware of the benefits of consistency of carers for people and tried to ensure this was in place.

A family member told us, “There appears to be a group of 4 or 5 main carers for my relative.” Another told us, “When my usual carer is on leave anyone covers. I am lucky to have a local woman as my usual carer.” However not all families felt carer consistency was being met for their relatives.

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

People’s communication needs were identified and recorded on care plans. For example, it was noted for one person they liked to receive any information via text messages on their phone as their communication preference and staff were able to support this. Staff had also used picture cards and google translate to support communication with people.

People and their families were able to view information relating to their records, notes and tasks through means of an app which was available on people’s phones. This ensured people and their families were up to date with care developments.

Staff were aware of and received training in keeping people’s information confidential. Staff were also aware of people and families’ wishes regarding communication and information sharing.

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 and their families were offered opportunities to provide feedback, through regular surveys and through care plan review meetings or during telephone conversations.

A formal complaints log was in place, and the management team had processes in place to manage these. There had been no recent complaints raised.

The management team told us that most issues or concerns were managed through telephone discussions with either people themselves or their family members.

Most people we spoke to felt the provider was responsive and listened to them. A family member told us, “Any issues or complaints, I ring the office, there’s no problem in getting through and they are responsive.” Another told us, “Whenever I have phoned the office, I have felt listened to and if the Manager is not available then they always call me back when they can, which is appreciated and pretty good.”

However, some families did not feel that they were always able to easily contact the office to raise concerns. Some staff told us the office phone was not always responded to promptly. People had access to complaints and compliments policies and procedures.

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

Staff were able to demonstrate how they overcame communication issues with people. for example, for one person the carers worked with the family member to identify and become aware that for a nonverbal person, when they pointed to an area of their body this indicated pain.

People their families and staff were aware how to contact the management team and senior staff during out of hours.

People told us care calls were usually on time, although some people told us they could be delayed.

One family member told us, “The carers come in everyday AM and PM. We have not had any issues in over 8 years.”

A person told us, “I do not always know when the carers are going to turn up as their time keeping can be affected by other people which I accept.”

Aids, adaptations and equipment were in place to support carers and people, for example hoists and slings.

The provider’s service user guide was available in different formats, for example braille, audio tape or non-English language. This supported people’s access to the service and did not discriminate in relation to people’s needs.

The provider was able to demonstrate that contingency planning was in place in the event of emergency situations. This ensured people would be safe and their support needs met.

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.

People’s care plans included information about their cultural backgrounds, social circumstances, disabilities, religion and other protected characteristics, enabling staff to provide personalised care which reflected each person's unique needs, preferences and identity.

A family member told us, “The company has been responsive towards my relative and their wishes.” Another told us the “[ care co-ordinator] also understands that individuals prefer to have the same carers and they strive to achieve this”.

Care plans provided clear guidance to help staff support people who experienced sensory impairments or other communication barriers.

The provider employed a diverse staff team, with a small proportion being from overseas.

Staff told us that they enjoyed sharing with people their cultural backgrounds and that this was a way of engaging with people, helping to understand people’s own backgrounds and preferences in relation to their care needs.

Any issue regarding staffs’ cultural backgrounds have been addressed where appropriate by management team.

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. Records did not always reflect clear contingency planning.

All staff received training on end-of-life care and support and told us they worked closely with district nurses and family members during these times. End of life care plans were evident in peoples care records.

We found evidence that additional information was required on care plans around contingency planning in the event of a family member no longer being able to provide the level of support they had been, this meant additional care calls would be necessary.