Bournemouth Rainbow 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 service 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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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 care plans did not always fully reflect their current needs. For example, some information about people’s medicines and some risks associated with the equipment they used was not accurate or up to date. This meant the provider could not be assured staff had access to complete and current information to support people safely and consistently.

The provider did not always ensure people received the most appropriate care and treatment for them. For example, people were not always referred to external professionals when required.

Staff knew people well. A staff member said, “I encourage people to do as much as they can for themselves while providing only the support they need. This includes encouraging them to make decisions, participate in personal care where possible, choose their meals, and engage in daily activities that promote independence.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Records confirmed staff communicated with health and social care professionals. A staff member said, “I speak with GPs, district nurses, pharmacists, and social workers when needed. They are involved in clients’ care, and my managers also work closely with them.”

Relatives and health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and explained in their care plans.

The provider told us, if required, information could be obtained in a variety of formats in a way people could understand it. For example, information could be provided in an easy read format.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider held regular meetings one-to-one basis with people to gain their feedback about their experience of the care they received. Where people could not communicate verbally, staff recorded their facial expressions and other non-verbal cues. This meant the provider gathered feedback from people in a way that met their communication needs and enabled them to express their views.

The service made sure that people could access the care and treatment for their general health appointments.

Staff understood people’s individual needs, their differences, and preferences.Records confirmed people were supported with their general health appointments.

The provider had an up-to-date Equality and diversity policy, and staff received equality and diversity training.

The provider operated an out-of-hours support in case of an emergency.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Risks to people’s health were not always identified and assessed. This meant barriers to receiving person-centred care and support were not always recognised or mitigated for those most at risk of poorer outcomes.

This placed people at risk of avoidable harm because staff may not have had the necessary guidance and information to respond consistently and effectively to their needs.

People were 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.

At the time of this inspection, the service was not supporting anyone who was receiving care during the final stages of life.

Care plans included a section on future planning to support people with life changes and end- of- life wishes. The provider had an up-to-date end of life policy. Staff were aware of people’s needs and wishes and had access to relevant documentation.

The provider confirmed that a specialised end of life training would be sourced if required.