Akos 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 – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s care needs were not always met.
 

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 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. We found that people using the service had a care plan in place. People’s care plans fully reflected their physical, mental and emotional needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. The provider had made reasonable adjustments for people on an individual basis when required. For example, they had offered a person using the service a larger annex to meet their care needs and had moved individuals downstairs when their mobility had declined.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Where a person received support from more than one service, care plans did not always reflect the support provided by other services. For example, when one person received ongoing wound care from the district nursing team, the provider did not collaborate with the team or include the information in their care plan and risk assessment.
However, the provider maintained a staff rota and ensured continuity of care by assigning the same regular and familiar staff members. People using the service confirmed that they received care from the same staff members, which enabled them to develop an understanding of the person’s support needs. An external professional working with the service reported that the service collaborated closely with them to support a person with complex and challenging needs.
 

The service did not always make information available in ways that are accessible. A person using the service told us they were not always able to access their care records when they wanted. They said, “When I requested a copy of my care plan, I was not provided with one and had to rely on another professional involved in my care to access it.” However, the provider appropriately assessed and documented if people had a communication need in their care plans to ensure staff understood how to support them effectively.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People using the service told us they how to give feedback, share ideas or complain about care, support and treatment. We found that a recording system was in place to log complaints, with the provider documenting the details of each complaint, the actions taken, and the outcomes. This included feedback to people following a complaint. The provider actively sought feedback on the quality-of-service using survey forms to prompt and promote regular feedback from staff and external professionals.

The provider made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. Reasonable adjustments were made to ensure equal access to the service for all. For example, the premises were accessible with appropriate mobility aids and adaptions. The provider operated a 24-hour provision, offering flexibility to ensure people could access care and support when needed. People received assistance from staff to attend medical appointments. This helped to remove barriers for people who may have found it difficult to access care.

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 a good understanding of the people who use their service that are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. The provider had policies in place and in-line with current best practice guidance around workforce equality and diversity. Staff had completed equality training to help them identify and respond to discrimination effectively.

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. The service was not providing end-of-life care at the time of our assessment. However, people’s decisions and what mattered to them were reflected in personalised care plans. People using the service were supported to make informed choices about their care while they had the capacity to do so. For example, people were supported to make decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and information about their Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) was recorded in their care plans. LPA is a legal document that allows someone to appoint another person to make decisions on their behalf if they are unable to do so themselves.