Choices 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 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 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.

The provider had introduced an electronic care planning system; however, not all care information had been uploaded. Staff therefore continued to rely on both paper-based plans and the electronic system. For people whose healthcare needs were shared with family members, care records did not clearly set out which tasks were the provider’s responsibility and which were completed by families. The Registered manager was not always aware of the tasks families were undertaking. As a result, there was reduced clarity about roles and responsibilities, which could affect how consistently care was delivered and overseen.

Whilst documentation was not always clear, people and their relatives told us they were supported by a diverse staff team who understood their cultural and religious needs and were able to converse in people’s preferred language. People said they received care in line with their preferences. One person said, “The carers have made an effort to check my preferences, and it makes me feel like a person not just a name.”

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 received support from a consistent staff team. One relative said, “They send regular carers. It means my [family member] feels familiar with them, it’s like a friendship.” Staff confirmed they supported the same people, and this enabled consistency and continuity in the care and support people received. The registered manager told us when people’s needs increased, this was referred to the local authority for additional support.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed during their initial assessment process and care plans recorded how best to communicate with people. This included information on what equipment was used to support communication. For example, hearing aids and glasses. Some people communicated in different ways. For example, 1 person was non speaking and their care plan guided staff to observe communication cues such as facial expressions. The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and, where required, was able to provide information in a format which considered people’s communication needs.

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.

Most people and their relatives felt they could raise concerns and that they would be listened too. Some relatives did give us examples of where they had raised concerns and felt communication with the office team could be improved. One relative said issues had not been resolved. However, action had been taken by the registered manager to reduce the issue reoccurring.

Some formal complaints we reviewed were managed well. The provider had systems and processes in place to obtain people’s feedback. For example, service quality questionnaires had been sent to people and their relatives. The analysis of the survey found people and their relatives were satisfied with the care and support received.

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

People with protected characteristics were actively supported to access Choices Care Ltd. Staff took time to understand each person’s individual characteristics and needs and worked closely with them and their relatives to ensure these needs were fully considered in their care planning. This included making sure appropriate equipment and adjustments were in place so that any potential barriers to receiving care were removed. Staff also described how they helped people with protected characteristics to access wider community and health services, such as other health or social care providers, ensuring people could use the services that mattered to them.

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 and their relative’s said they were treated equally and fairly. Staff understood the barriers some people experienced in securing good outcomes. Staff gave examples showing how they worked with people to reduce any unfairness they may experience and to have positive outcomes. For example, people remained in their own home. Staff had completed quality and diversity training.

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.

Systems needed to be developed to ensure people were asked if they had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form in place.This is important because staff need clear, accessible guidance to ensure people’s wishes about emergency treatment are understood, respected, and acted on consistently. However, at the time of inspection no one was receiving end of life care. The provider had considered people’s decisions and wishes about their future and recorded if people wished to share these decisions or not.