3L Care 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 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 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff showed a strong understanding of people. They used personalised communication plans and regular engagement to understand people’s views, preferences, and choices, which were embedded into individualised care plans. People’s care plans were detailed and reflected each person’s routines, preferences and emotional needs. They included practical information such as preferred shower times, favourite comfort items and how someone communicates best. People we spoke with described a sense of ownership and identity. Positive Behaviour Support plans explained what may trigger distress for people and set out strategies staff can use to prevent or respond to distress. Relatives said care is now more person-centred and focused on improving quality of life. The leadership team were committed to providing experiences and support tailored to each person’s diverse needs and interests whilst respecting their day-to-day choices. 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Several relatives described earlier concerns about poor escalation and lack of openness before the current management team was in place. They told us this has improved a lot. Coordination and continuity of care had improved and was more structured. The provider worked with a range of external professionals to support people’s care. Professional partners described improved partnership working with the new home manager. One professional said, “The home manager will call or email with any concerns.” Leaders and staff we spoke with emphasised the importance of using input from families and professionals to deliver the best care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Systems for sharing information were in place and generally working well. People and their relatives had clear ways to raise concerns and receive information, and transparency from the provider had improved. We saw evidence people were supported to understand any proposals or ideas put forward by the provider, and they also ensured meaningful communication to involve people in decision making. There was a clear complaints process, including an easy-read version so it was accessible to people. Complaints, including lower-level concerns which the provider referred to formally as “grumbles” were recorded and reviewed. One relative said when they raised a concern, “She is on it straight away,” referring to the home manager’s quick response. Relatives described improved openness under the current leadership team. One relative said, “[Home Manager] doesn’t hide anything.” Some relatives reported occasional difficulties contacting staff at certain times of day. Several relatives said communication about care provision, appointments or changes varied depending on which staff were working at the time. Staff spoke about an open-door approach and regular meetings where feedback can be shared. 

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. Relatives described improvement in how they were involved in care decisions under the current leadership team. One relative said, “Since the change in management, we are not worried about leaving [Name].” Another relative told us, “Now our views are taken into account.” The provider kept formal complaints record helping to identify and address issues early. Staff told us about regular meetings and open forums where people and families can share their views. One relative said, “I felt I couldn’t bring anything up because [Name] would suffer.” Feedback from relatives overwhelmingly indicated the culture of listening and involvement had improved significantly. People we spoke with told us they felt confident staff and leaders would take their concerns seriously.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They promoted fair access to care and community involvement. We observed people’s health appointments were well supported and care plans showed awareness of people’s cultural backgrounds, personal values and communication needs. Staff spoke to us about inclusion positively. One staff member said, “We all like things doing differently, it’s about their individual values.” We saw how people were supported to access their chosen community activities and relatives described increased opportunities. Relatives told us there had been much improvement in supporting people to take part in community life and social opportunities. 

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. Feedback from people and relative’s showed experiences had improved and were more equitable under the current leadership. They told us people’s experiences were becoming more positive and consistent. One person told us they feel “part of the family.” Relatives described better communication and greater reassurance about their loved one’s care. Some relatives spoke about past differences in people’s experiences. These included concerns about over-medication, limited activity and inconsistent interaction between shifts. The provider had taken action to address these issues, including reviewing medication practices and increasing opportunities for activity and engagement.  

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People were supported to make decisions about their future care and support, including those relating to potential medical and psychological needs. Staff actively engaged with people to explore their understanding of their rights and to discuss their wishes. The provider had plans in place to improve the building, including redesign work and general refurbishment. People and their relatives told us they have been consulted and listened to about the proposed environmental plans. One relative said, “I just hope they keep pushing forward with this.”