Applewood Support 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. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

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.

Generally, the provider placed people at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People had basic care plans which contained some brief personalised information. However, there was no detailed information to inform staff about what people enjoyed talking. Staff got to know people and how they liked their care tasks to be delivered, and this enabled people’s care to be person-centred.

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 and relatives were positive about the care service they received, telling us staff were kind to them. People and relatives felt they were able to contribute to their care planning and felt involved.
The provider is a member of a local Association of Home Care Providers where peer group advice and support was shared, with the aim of providing good care based on good practices. Partnership working was valued by the provider who was supported by external agencies, such as district nurses, to help with the responsive delivery of care provision.
 

The provider always supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and relatives had the information they needed about their care and completed feedback surveys about the service.
The provider understood their responsibilities in relation to the accessible information standard which applies to people who use a service and have information or communication needs because of a disability, impairment, or sensory loss. The provider told us, “[Name] does not read, so we have a pictorial format care plan for them.”
Staff felt they had the information they needed to complete care tasks for people.
 

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.

Some people and relatives told us about initial concerns they had about when their package of care had started and felt things were not always as good as they expected. However, where people and relatives had raised concerns, these had been listened to and resolved. One relative told us, “Things were not good at first, I was nearly going to change agency, but after a meeting it has improved.” Everyone spoken with told us they felt they could raise any concerns with the management team and hoped any issues would quickly be addressed.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider made referrals to other care professionals when people needed the support of specialist health, advocacy services or social care services.

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. The provider was able to explain how they were supporting a person and their relatives who needed additional support with financial management issues. The provider had signposted the person’s relatives and met with them to offer support and guidance so as to alleviate anxieties and improve outcomes for the person.

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.

Some people using the service had life limiting health conditions and a few people had been admitted to hospital for end of life care. We found people and their relatives were not offered the opportunity to think about future wishes if their health or situation changed. For example, whether it was their preference to remain at home with healthcare support or receive support and treatment from other services. We informed the provider their assessment of needs and care planning did not include any discussion with people and relatives about future wishes. They acknowledged this was an area that could be developed and included in care planning.