Goldfinch Care Agency Private 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 that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key questionGood. At thisassessmentthe rating hasremainedgood.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatmentchoicesand they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had individual care and plans which reflected their physical, emotional, and social needs.

Care plans were detailed, person-centred, and comprehensive, with a clear focus on people’s preferences and what mattered most to them. For example,1person’s care plan highlighted the importance of regular nail and hair care treatments, as well as their preferred times for receiving personal care. It also reflected their interests, including a love of sports and ‘golden oldies’ music, ensuring these meaningful aspects of their life were supported and incorporated into their daily routines.

Regular reviews of care plans with people and whereappropriate theirfamilies and advocatestook place.The registered manager met with people in person tofacilitatethese reviews, providing opportunities for individuals to express their views, make changes to their support, and ensure care remained person-centred.

Reviews of care notes completed by staff also supported the delivery ofperson-centredcare. Extractsfrom one person’s notes included, ‘hair was styled’,‘played various hymns and bag pipes while[name]was havingtheirbreakfast’,‘assured [name] they were safe and not alone’,and ‘watched their choices ofTV programmes’.

Peoples feedback confirmed they receive person centred careand theirchoicesand preferences were met. A relative said, “The care package isperfect,andall of his care needs are met.”

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.

Care was delivered in a joined-up way, with effective communication between staff, external healthcare professionals and other services involved in people’s care. This helped to ensure continuity and consistency in how care and support were provided. Staff understood the importance of working collaboratively to achieve positive outcomes for people.

People and their relatives told us they received a consistent and reliable service from regular staff, whom they hadbeen integral inidentifyingwould be most suitable to support them.These staffdemonstrateda good understanding of people’s individual routines,preferencesand needs, and provided care in an organised and consistent manner.

The provider suppliedappropriate,accurateand up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.They were meeting the ‘accessible information standard’ which is a legal requirement for providers of health and social care. Staff had training and understood their responsibilities to meet general data protection regulations.

We were assured people’s communication needs were being met day to day.Care plans we reviewed confirmed people’s communication needs were assessed at the point of referral and considered at their care reviewsand a relative toldus,“Communication with[name]is limited due to the severity of his condition but the carershave gotten to know them andunderstandthemwell”.

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

People were offered regular opportunities to share their views about the service, including during care reviews and at any time in between. This supported the service to respond to people’s individual needs and experiences. We reviewed feedback from a recent satisfaction survey which confirmed people were fully satisfied with the service they received.

All the people we spoke with were complimentary about the service and the care provided. One person told us, “My overall comment of every aspect of the service is ‘perfect’.” Another person said, “I have no complaints at all.” Thisdemonstratedthat people felt their needs were being met and they were supported in a way which suited them.

The service had a complaints policy and procedure in place to ensure any concerns were listened to, investigated promptly, and used to improve the quality of care. This helped to ensure the service remained responsive to people’s feedback and experiences.

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

We did notidentifyany concernsregardingpeople’s ability to access the service. There was no evidence to suggest that anyone was disadvantaged or unable to receive support ina timelyor consistent manner.

People received care that was in line with their assessed needs. Care provision was organised in a structured way, enabling staff to deliver support reliably and as planned. This ensured people experiencedequitableaccess to the service, and staff responded appropriately when individuals’ needs changed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care,supportand treatment in response to this.

There were no concernsidentifiedregardinghow people accessed or experienced the service. People were treated as individuals and were not disadvantaged or treated less favourably due to their personal characteristics, background, or specific support needs. Thisdemonstratedpeople’s overall experience of the service wasequitable.

People consistently received care that was ofgood qualityand aligned with their assessed needs.One person said, “They are lovelypeople [staff]who look after all my care needs very well. They are kind, compassionate and always respectful.”

Feedback from people and their relatives did not highlight any concerns about the support provided. This positive feedback provided assurance that the service was delivered in an inclusive, person-centred way and that people’s day-to-day experiences reflected this.

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.

People’s decisionsregardingtheir future wishes and end-of-life care were not consistently discussed with them or their relatives. This omission wasidentifiedduring our review of care plans. We raised this with the registered managerduring the inspection.In response to ourfindingstheyacknowledged thisshortfall andprovided assurances to us they would set about discussingpeople’sfuture wishes and end of life care attheir next care review.

That said,feedbackwe received confirmed the service did adapt well in relation to people’s changing needs, declinein their healthand during end of life.One relative told us, “The service supported both my [family members] until last year. During my [named relative]’s decline, they were brilliant with them before they passed away. My remaining [named relative] continues to receive the service, and this has given us peace of mind for anything that may happen in the future.”