Regional Care Peterborough

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, the rating haschanged to Good.This meant people’s needs were met.

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.

People’s risk assessments and care plans varied in how person-centred and detailed they were. We observed some strong examples, which included clear guidance on how to encourage individuals to engage in personal care. However, other risk assessments and sections of care plans lacked sufficient detail and required further development. During the inspection, the provider submitted revised care plans and risk assessments to address these concerns.

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 treated people as individuals and made sure care and support met their needs and preferences. The service reported any concerns to health professionals and always sought to provide joined-up care and support in collaboration with others.

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

People and relatives told us that staff were good at getting to know people so that they understood how they communicated. One relative told us, “They always speak to [relative], he is very happy with them, and they are always talking to him-even though, due to his condition, it is very difficult to understand him-they use sign language and picked up(better than me) how to understand him.”

The registered manager stated that care plans and information can be provided in different formats and languages if needed.

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.

The provider sent annual surveys to gather feedback on the service that was being provided. During the office visit the findings of the most recent survey could not be found and the registered manager stated that they had not been collated. These were provided after the office visit.

People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about how often they were asked for their views on the service. Some people told us that office staff contacted them regularly to seek feedback, while others said they were not routinely asked for their opinions. This meant the provider could not be fully assured that everyone had consistent opportunities to share their experiences and views.

We saw that quality reviews had been carried out through visits to people in their homes, during which their current needs were discussed.

The complaints procedures needed updating to include the information about who the registered manager was. The complaints policy also included references to a “Medical Administration Manager” and” MAC Chair” however the registered manager confirmed that they did not know who the MAC Chair was and that these roles were not relevant to the service and would update the policy.

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

The provider had policies on equality, diversity and inclusion, and staff had completed relevant training. This helped ensure they understood people’s protected characteristics and the importance of delivering fair and equal care.

People and relatives told us they were involved in decisions about people’s care, and staff respected their choices and preferences.

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 received care that was responsive to their individual needs and circumstances, and feedback showed that people felt safe, supported and treated fairly. This helped ensure that personal characteristics or levels of need did not negatively affect people’s experience of care.

Staff respected people’s beliefs, culture, and identity, and made sure everyone felt included and safe to express themselves.

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.

People’s preferences and wishes in relation to end of life care had not been considered or documented within care plans or risk assessments. This meant there was limited evidence to demonstrate how people’s choices would be respected if their needs changed. However, the registered manager stated that people they provided a service to had not been assessed as being close to the end of their life at the time of the inspection. Although none of the people using the service were assessed as being at the end of their life, their future wishes had not been explored, and no anticipatory plans or guidance were in place to support staff to respond appropriately to people at end of life. Staff had not completed training in the end of life care. The registered manager confirmed that if needed and staff had the skills they would provide end of life care.