Liral Veget Training and Recruitment 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.

The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At this assessment we found care plans identified and reflected individual preferences, wishes and the support people needed. People and their relatives had been consulted about the care and support they received.

This service scored 71 (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 had made available relevant information in different formats, including large print and in pictorial format for people who wanted and needed this. However, the provider had not always ensured people had the information they needed about the service. For example, people and their relatives were not provided with accurate information about the previous inspection rating at all times and contact details of commissioners and safeguarding team of a local authority, should people needed to raise concerns or make a complaint.

The registered manager and care workers told us they shared people’s relevant information with another provider who supported them to access the community and for health care appointments and this ensured continuity of care and support. People’s care and support records confirmed this.

The provider had made available relevant information in different formats, including large print and in pictorial format for people who wanted and needed this. However, the provider had not always ensured people had the information they needed about the service. For example, people and their relatives were not provided with accurate information about the previous inspection rating at all times and contact details of commissioners and safeguarding team of a local authority, should people needed to raise concerns or make a complaint.

People and their relatives had been consulted about the care and support they received. One relative told us, “Yes, the last care plan was reviewed last year, and I have a copy. They [care workers] have included my loved one’s behaviour in the community in it now.” Another relative said, “Yes they [care workers] normally go through the care plan with me, and I will adapt it if needed.”
Care workers respected people’s choices and preferences relating to their personal care, such as the clothes they wanted to wear, or to have a shower or bath.

The service was non-discriminatory. The registered manager told us they would always support people with any needs they had with regards to their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, or preferred gender. Care workers provided personal care to people when they needed it.

The provider ensured people had equity in experience and outcomes. The provider had procedures for ensuring personalised care. Care workers had training in equality and diversity. People’s care plans included information about their individual characteristics, culture, religion, sexuality, lifestyle and beliefs. Relatives told us their individual needs were respected.

People’s care and support records confirmed that none of them required support with end-of-life care. In addition to a comprehensive support plan, people had an Integrated Extra Care support plan that included people’s personal care needs, which were supported by the care workers and the remaining tasks were to be provided by another provider.