Essex and Suffolk Quality Care Ltd

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 requires improvement. At this assessment improvements had been made, and the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People were supported to make decisions about their own care and support. Staff treated people as individuals, providing a person-centred approach. People had access to health care professionals to ensure their health needs were met when required. People’s future planning and end of life wishes had been discussed and documented.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us they received care which met their needs and preferences. A family member said, “The staff tend to have a chat before they shower [relative] and recently have done their hair really nicely, which pleased them a great deal.”

Staff feedback demonstrated they had provided person centred care to people. A staff member said, “I have certain tasks to do but it depends on the person. I go with what they need on that day, respecting their choices but encouraging them at the same time to say, have a shower and go step by step. This usually works but it has to be trust and kindness at the end of the day.”

People’s care plans had been improved to include more detailed information about their needs, risks to their health and wellbeing, daily routine and their preferences. An electronic recording system had been introduced so staff could record their daily notes on their mobile phone detailing what care had been provided. People’s notes were easier to read meaning staff had the necessary information available to care for people effectively. People’s protected characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation were recorded to ensure they were not discriminated against in the planning and delivery of their care. Where people’s first language was not English, this was not recorded. The registered manager agreed to add this to the care plan.

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 told us they were receiving care from mainly the same regular staff, so they received continuity of care. The registered manager said, “A person who was already receiving care from our service and who could not go out alone, required extra support through the week to access the community, attend their club and go to the local shops to complete their shopping. With the communication between their social worker, the placement team and looking at staff availability, we were able to get this put into place. This made a big difference to their wellbeing and health just by joining up services together.”

People and their relatives and staff were provided with information which was accessible and clear. The registered manager was aware of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) which requires services to provide information and support in accessible ways. Systems were in place which enabled people to either receive information in accessible formats or alternative ways. For example, where people were deaf and used lip reading, there was directions for staff in how to communicate with them; standing directly in front of the person, at least 2 metres away and speak clearly and slowly; using visual aids and writing words down. When a person needed to contact the office or vice versa, this was done through text message to make it easier to ensure good communication. Staff had downloaded and used the Translator application on their mobile phones in order to communicate effectively with people whose first language was not English. A staff member said, “It was so easy to do, and we could communicate with each other instantly.”

People were listened to and involved in the planning of their care and support. The registered manager made regular visits to people’s homes to talk with them and undertake reviews of their care. Checks on staff competency and observation of their practice were also undertaken with the involvement of people. Compliments and comments from people and relatives were recorded, passed onto staff and any action needed was taken.

A satisfaction survey was sent to people in 2023. The survey results were analysed and the outcome shared with people and their relatives. The registered manager told us that a survey was sent in July 2024, and they were still waiting for them to be completed. There was no closing date. In discussion with the registered manager they recognised that this system was not working and agreed to amend this with a new survey to go out with a date for reply. This would then show real-time satisfaction with the service, to know people’s views and be able to look at any improvements necessary.

People could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. We saw people had been referred to a range of different health professionals, such as GP’s, district nurses and social services. The registered manager liaised with professionals to ensure people’s care and support was up to date, for example, gaining an accurate list of a person’s medicines, or requesting a reassessment for extra hours for a person whose needs had changed. Staff understood people had the right to receive the care and support that met their individual needs. A staff member told us, “If there was anything I thought someone needed or they told me about something, I would put it in my notes and also inform the office. I would be confident that this would be taken forward.”

The registered manager and staff actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this. Overall, people received appropriate care and support at a time which suited their individual needs. The registered manager and staff understood people’s right to equity in accessing care and support. The registered manager told us, “Sometimes there is a clash of personality, and we listen to people’s concerns. We want our staff and people to get on well together so that is our priority and will go out of our way to make sure this happens.” People were treated fairly and had not experienced any discrimination or unfair treatment.

People’s care plans included a section for documenting information and discussions around making informed decisions about their future, including their end of their life wishes. We saw this completed where people had made the necessary arrangements or that it had been discussed but no decisions had been made at this time. It was documented if a person had a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) in place and if they had a representative such as a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) who could act on their behalf.

No-one using the service at the time of our assessment needed support with end-of-life care. We did not see evidence that staff had received end of life care training but understood from the registered manager that they had cared for someone who had recently died and had supported the family with their care. After the onsite visit, the provider confirmed that all staff had completed online training in end of life care.