The Private Care Company

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 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 had tools in place to enable people to be at the centre of their care and treatment choices. However, these were not always effective.

People were actively involved in all decisions about their care and had control over what they wanted to do on a day-to-day level. Staff supported people in making their own choices. Leaders told us how they completed reviews with people in their homes and documented any changes needed. However, some care plans required improvements to consistently reflect detailed and personalised information about people’s capabilities and goals. Daily care records were not always completed in a person-centred way. Leaders had recognised issues with some daily care notes and began making changes during this assessment. This included working with staff to understand the importance of accurately documenting the person-centred care they had delivered. However, this will take time to fully embed in practice.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about personalised and flexible scheduling of visits. People who had live-in staff, or full day calls for 1 to 1 support had consistent times and support from regular staff teams in line with their preferences. Staff confirmed this approach helped them build positive working relationships with people and their representatives which enabled them to provide consistently personalised support. However, for people receiving shorter and more frequent homecare calls, this was not always the case. Some relatives told us, “One night a male carer arrived to sit at night when I had said no males”, “Office staff are helpful and responsive to messages but it is not always easy to change times when we need to” and “I have complained about timings as it is not always our choice and we are not always informed [before receiving a rota]”. Leaders were open to feedback. They told us they had not received any complaints from people and relatives about this. They explained their processes for informing people and relatives about changes. Leaders told us they would review their current systems in place. However, improvements to processes would take time to fully embed in practice.

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.

Where needed, the provider supported people to access care and treatment they needed it in a timely way. External professionals and partners spoke positively about communication they received from leaders and staff which ensured effective partnership working for people. A partner said, “On the whole, staff tend to be very competent and keen to work together to achieve the best environment for the client.”

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

People were provided with the information they needed about their care and support. They had access to equipment and systems such as communication cards or large print. The provider had produced a general communication guide and policy for staff. A leader said, “For 1 person [living with sight impairment], when their relative wasn't available, I read out the contract to [person] and recorded their verbal agreement.” The registered manager was aware of accessible information standards (AIS). AIS provides the legal framework to support people with their communication needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, this was not always effective.

People and their representatives received a ‘Care Guide for clients’ booklet which included information about how to contact the office or make a complaint should the need arise. They said they would speak up if they had any concerns. Staff understood the complaints procedure. Processes were in place to ensure people’s voices were heard. There were opportunities for people to make a complaint or feedback to staff at any time. However, feedback from people and relatives about care call timings and durations meant they did not always feel listened to. Documentation viewed for 2 care plan review meetings evidenced feedback had not always been investigated or any outcomes shared with them. Leaders recognised this was an area for improvement. They are reviewing processes to ensure a consistent and effective approach to all forms of feedback received. However, this will take time to fully embed.

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

People had free choice and access to any internal and external service provisions they required. Where required, referrals were made to the relevant health and social care professional to meet people’s needs. For example, where people were reluctant to engage with services due to self-neglect, staff worked patiently and pro-actively with people and external partners to encourage and support them to access the services they needed. This helped to promote equitable access to services and positive health outcomes. Feedback from people, relatives, staff and partners confirmed this.

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 did not experience any discrimination in relation to equity in access, experience or outcomes. Care plans detailed people’s social, cultural and spiritual needs and how this should be met. This meant there was not a barrier to people receiving fair treatment. Staff had training for Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR), which helped to recognise, promote and protect people's protected characteristics. The provider had equality and diversity policies in place, which had been developed in line with The Equality Act 2010.

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.

Care plans did not always evidence that the provider supported people to plan for both small and significant goals, aspirations and life changes. The service was not supporting anyone at the end of their lives at the time of assessment. Care plans included information on specific wishes people may have as to the actions staff should take should resuscitation be required. Staff had received end of life care training.