Routes Healthcare Tameside

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 remained 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 did not consistently demonstrate the involvement of people or their families in the planning of their care. We received mixed feedback from people and their representatives regarding their involvement in decision making about care and treatment. One relative told us, “The manager came in and we did my loved one’s care plan together.” Another relative told us, “There are no meetings. The only people we speak with are carers.”

Records made about people were task focused and lacked information about how people’s emotional needs were met. We received mixed feedback from people regarding receiving person-centred care from staff. One relative told us, “New carers turn up who haven’t got a clue about care, or what is needed.” Another relative told us, “My loved one is improving every day, and we feel this is down to the help of the carers, they are doing a good job.” Staff we spoke to had a good understating of recognising and supporting people’s needs and providing person-centred care. One staff member told us, “During the training I was told I needed to get to know the person and read their care plan before I met them. For example, if somebody has allergies, I need to know how to deal with these. I take time to get to know the person.”

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.

People told us they received support from medical and other professionals as and when required, although their care records did not consistently capture this involvement. One relative told us, “My loved one has a physio, and they have ordered them a new wheelchair.” Staff we spoke to had good understating of working with others to support people in meeting their outcomes. One staff member told us, “Any concerns about my client I would communicate to the office or to the District Nurses and they take it from there.”

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

People’s communication needs were outlined and detailed in their care plans. Staff had good a understanding of recognising and meeting people’s individual communication needs. One staff member told us, “Different individuals have different needs. Most clients can tell me what they need so I can help that way.”

There were processes and procedures in place to support people’s individual communication needs. We saw some evidence of information presented in a way that was meeting people’s individual communication needs. For example, we saw one person’s record of a care review translated into their native language to support understanding.

Some people told us, they experienced difficulties to communicate with staff when English wasn’t their first language. One person told us, “With some staff we can’t understand them and they can’t understand us.”

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 and their relatives were not always provided with opportunities to share their views and feedback regarding care and support they were receiving. One person told us, “We have given up trying to talk to with the managers. Nothing gets sorted.” One relative told us, “I rang the office recently and was told they would call me back, but they never do.”

People and their relatives commented on the frequent changes within the leadership team which impacted on the communication. Some people did not always know who to speak if they had any concerns or issues. One person told us, “Managers seems to come and go-nobody comes here to see us. I don’t see anybody other than carers.” We saw evidence the provider started to address people’s complaints including some of the historical concerns raised in the past.

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

People with complex health needs received support and advice from medical professionals employed by the provider for example registered nurses. We also saw evidence people were receiving support from relevant professionals to meet their needs such as the GP or physiotherapist. Staff had good understanding of when and how seek support for the people they cared for. However, we received no feedback from stakeholders and professionals the provider works with. People had access to the out of hours telephone number to contact the provider in the event of an emergency. We saw evidence reasonable adjustments were made for people for example in relation to meeting their communication needs.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider told us they worked with other professionals to support care outcomes for people. However, we have not received feedback from stakeholders and professionals regarding this. People did not always have opportunities to share their feedback and views with the provider and felt they were not always listened to. For example, one person told us, they asked for some staff not to visit again. However, the staff members in question were continually sent by the provider to support the person which resulted in some of their needs not being met. People and their relatives mostly communicated with staff due to the frequent changes within the leadership structure. One relative told us, “If our regular carers left the agency, then we would move agencies, we are only staying because carers are good.” The provider recognised people’s protected characteristics and staff had a good understanding about how to meet these needs. For example, one person told us, “My loved one struggles to communicate in English but staff know how to understand what he needs.”

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.

People’s care plans included information regarding people’s future wishes including end of life care. People’s care plans were updated when people’s wishes were changing or there were further information or details, they wished to share. Staff involved people in decisions about their future care and agreed a plan of support with them.