Brand Care

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 service. This key question has been rated 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.

People were placed at the centre of their care. The provider worked wholly alongside people and relatives to ensure person centred care was provided in line with their preferences, wishes and protected characteristics.

Communication between the service and families was notable. A relative said, “Communication is brilliant. I have an excellent relationship with one of the managers. I receive regular phone calls and updates. This is especially helpful to me as I can also step in when my [name] anxiety and distress begin to escalate.”

Care plans included consideration of people’s protected characteristics and reference to their cultural needs. One person’s care plan had recorded their faith, religion and cultural needs. Feedback from the person’s relative and staff who supported them confirmed these were met and upheld.

Records and feedback we received confirmed reviews of people’s care were undertaken and they and their relatives were provided with a copy of their plan at home. One person said, “I have access to the care records and am fully involved in the reviews.”

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 was reliable, flexible and met requests for care to be delivered by gender and culturally specific staff. The ability to meet these requests provided consistent and organised care to people. One relative said, “If I go on holiday and [name] becomes distressed by my absence they [staff] are brilliant and they continually keep in contact with me whilst I am away too. They are so flexible which reassures us both. I know they are left in good hands.”

From people and relatives feedback it was clear the service provided holistic care. Managers and staff, from the point of referral to the service, developed a joined up approach between people, relatives and health professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service was meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This standard is to ensure people receive information which meets their individual communication needs.

People and relatives were supplied with appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which met their individual communication needs. This included at the commencement of care a service user guide, contract and contact details for the service.

Records were stored safely and confidentially and in line with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Staff told us they understood people’s communication needs. Staff members recounted known communication methods used with people which included in people’s preferred language and through non-verbal communication.

Care plans we reviewed confirmed people’s communication needs were assessed at the point of referral and considered at their care reviews.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Whilst formal reviews were being undertaken with people and those important to them managers were routinely gathering informal feedback. This was corroborated by relatives we spoke with. One said, “The biggest thing for me is the senior management doing regular spot check visits. It strikes me. It gives [name] an opportunity to directly feedback about how things are going.”

Of all the feedback we received, no concern or complaint was reported to us.

Contemporaneous detailed records were kept which allowed for the effective monitoring of people and care delivery. Staff monitored and continually assessed people’s needs ensuring any change in their presentation would be promptly identified and acted upon.

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

No concerns relating to people’s ability to access the service were found. There was no evidence to suggest anyone was disadvantaged or unable to receive support in a timely or consistent way.

People received care in line with their assessed needs. Managers arranged care provision in a structured way to ensure staff could deliver care reliably and as planned. This meant people experienced equitable access to the service.

There were no concerns or differences identified of how people received or experienced the service. People were treated as individuals but, not less favourably from one another regardless of their personal characteristics, background or support needs. This meant people’s overall experience was equitable.People, confirmed by their relatives, received good quality and consistent care which reflected their assessed needs. No concerns or inconsistencies in people’s experience were identified. Considering overall feedback of people’s experience, we were assured the service from day to day was inclusive and person centred.

The providers Equality, Diversity and Human Rights policy included consideration to people’s protected characteristics, types of discrimination they may face and their right to equal opportunities. One extract from this policy stated; ‘We (provider) treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meet their needs and preferences. We take account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People and relatives were offered support 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.

Opportunities to discuss future decisions at the time of assessment and reviews were in placealthough of the records reviewed those people in receipt of care had not chosen to discuss their plans for the future.