Everlife (Wiltshire)

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 has changed to 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. This meant people received the most up to date support in line with their changing needs.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the service provided, which met their specific needs. Staff told us providing a service to meet people’s specific needs was “the most important part of their job”. This approach was reflected in the care records we reviewed. Comments from people included “I am always put first” and “they solve any problems that I am facing, they are so good”.

Daily notes showed detail where staff had written about conversations they had with people and this reflected care was being delivered in a person-centred way.

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

Staff and leaders kept professionals up to date with any concerning information about a person’s wellbeing. They were also invited to care reviews, which enabled coordinated and improved support for the person to be implemented.

Leaders were knowledgeable about people’s diverse health and social care needs. They gave examples of these and explained how other professionals were involved to ensure the person’s wellbeing. For example, leaders described one person who often became anxious and lived in a challenging environment. They said they regularly liaised with other professionals about this, to ensure the most appropriate support was being provided.

People told us the service worked well with other professionals when needed. This included local GP surgeries, occupational therapists, social workers and pharmacies.

Staff liaised with people’s relatives once consent to do so had been sought. Supportive measures included newsletters for relatives and the availability of an app so that people’s care could be shared from afar. This was especially useful for relatives who did not live locally but who wanted to ensure their relatives were receiving responsive support.

The provider supplied appropriate and accurate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Rostering was completed four weeks in advance which enabled people to know who was supporting them each day. The registered manager told us about information being available to people in different formats to support their understanding, but that people preferred staff to talk to them about any changes.

Staff had received training and were able to explain how they protected people’s personal information.

The provider made it easy for people to discuss and update their support, feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them of any changes.

The provider completed quarterly reviews with people to give them opportunity to discuss their support. However, people found this was too often, so the provider changed the reviews to six monthly.

People told us “‘If I had any concerns, I would raise it with the manager” and that if they were not happy, they would tell staff. The provider had a complaints policy in place. This ensured all complaints would be investigated and a response provider to the person.

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

Assessments covering the accessibility of people’s homes and whether any adaptations, equipment or referrals to occupational therapists were needed had been completed.

Where people changed care from a different provider, we saw the provider actively working in partnership with other organisations. One relative told us: ‘Care staff from Everlife even shadowed [previous provider] – that’s the difference right there.”

People could choose who they wanted to support them for planned events. If additional support was needed, the provider ensured staff were made available for this. This demonstrated the provider was putting reasonable adjustments in place on an individual basis to ensure all people received a service that was holistic in its approach. The roster was arranged flexibly to support people’s needs. This included supporting a person to attend an ad-hoc GP appointment outside of usual care hours.

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.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training and respected each person as an individual. People were fully involved in developing their support plan and risk assessments and could make changes at any time they wished.

People told us they were supported to access services to meet their healthcare needs. They said their rights were promoted and they could share their views about their service through calling the office, care reviews and surveys. Some people said the manager sometimes undertook their support and would ask different questions such as staff performance.

Leaders analysed the feedback people provided and identified any patterns or trends. People were informed in writing of the outcomes from the surveys they had completed and any other analysis. This included the work leaders had undertaken to improve the timing of care visits. Records showed concerns were documented alongside a clear analysis and the action taken.

People were supported to plan for important life changes. This allowed them enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example whether people wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they wished to remain at home. These decisions were recorded in respect documents and advanced care documents. This information was also recorded in people’s care plans.

The provider had end of life documents in place including ReSPECT forms which clearly outlined what people wanted should they become unwell and require emergency care. Where appropriate, these had been shared and discussed openly with relatives.