Abney & Baker (Bath) 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 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 their relatives shared positive feedback about the service, stating it met their individual needs and expectations. Staff expressed pride in their work, telling us that delivering person-centred care was “why I love working here so much.” This commitment was evident in the care records we reviewed, which reflected a personalised approach.

People told us they felt prioritised and well-supported, with comments including “[relative] is fully involved with their care. There are several staff who work with [relative] and new staff shadow so that [relative] has a chance to meet and get to know them before care starts” and “[relative] has the same carers, he likes them, they know him well”.

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 ensured external professionals were kept informed of any concerns regarding a person’s wellbeing. They actively facilitated multi-agency involvement by inviting relevant professionals to care reviews, which supported joined up planning and enhanced outcomes for the person.

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, a person who received ad-hoc care from the provider had recently started to re-use the service. Managers remembered this person and during re-assessment asked if their needs had changed. Managers also asked if the person would like the same staff that supported them several years previously. This meant people experienced continuity in their care.

The provider supplied appropriate and accurate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff rostering was completed six weeks in advance which enabled people to know who was supporting them each day.

During pre-assessment meetings, people using the service were asked what format they would like information to be in. 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.

We found a revised needs assessment had been drafted and was now being used. This included asking people about their capacity to make decisions, how they wanted information and how they would describe their care needs.

Relatives told us they valued the online care planning system, as it allowed them to keep track of their family member’s daily activities. This was particularly important for people living with dementia where memory challenges meant they might not be able to recall what had happened during the day.

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 carried out annual reviews with people to give them dedicated time to reflect on and discuss their support. In addition, people were encouraged to share feedback more frequently to help shape their ongoing care.

People told us they felt confident raising concerns with staff and managers. One person said, “I know who to speak to if something isn’t right—they always listen and take it seriously.” Others shared that “management were receptive and accessible and make amendments if required”.

The provider had a complaints policy in place. This ensured all complaints would be investigated and a response provided to the person.

However, some complaints were closed on the system without the follow up action noting the outcome. We discussed this with the manager who took immediate action.

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

Relatives had access to care records where appropriate, and the provider responded flexibly to individual preferences. For example, when some relatives found electronic records difficult to use, the provider offered paper-based alternatives to ensure information remained accessible. For example, some people had paper-based care plans in their homes as this was their preference while others had a digital one.

People were also supported with easy-read documents to help them understand how to raise concerns or make choices about their care

Staff made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs, including flexible visits for people and additional support for planned events or ad-hoc appointments. For example, 2 people told us their carers had stayed beyond a visit time in order to ensure people felt safe and comfortable following two separate incidents.

One person told us “[carer] stayed longer to ensure not only my [relative] was safe following an incident but also to ensure my anxiety was supported. I am really thankful for that”. This demonstrated a commitment to delivering inclusive, person-centred care that responded to people’s circumstances and preferences.

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.

The provider actively promoted equity in both experiences and outcomes by tailoring care and support to meet the diverse needs of individuals. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and demonstrated a respectful, person-centred approach to care. People were fully involved in developing their support plans and risk assessments, with the flexibility to make changes at any time.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality and responded with personalised adjustments. For example, one person told us, “They always ask what I want and how I want it done - carers feel like family.” Another person said, “each of the staff bring a unique skillset.”

People told us they were supported to access services that met their healthcare needs and felt their rights were respected. They shared that they could express their views through care reviews, conversations with carers, or by calling the office directly. This inclusive approach ensured that people received equitable care.

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 understood and respected people’s wishes regarding future care decisions, such as whether they preferred to receive further treatment in hospital or remain at home. These preferences were clearly documented in end of life planning documents and were also reflected in people’s individual care plans to ensure their choices were upheld.

The provider was in the process of developing an additional service which focused on rehabilitation, maintenance of skills and planned support through the delivery of specialist care. The goal was that people’s long-term health and support needs would be reduced, minimising the cost of future long-term care.

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

Relatives recognised the importance of future planning. Comments included

“We were asked to subscribe to the package for relatives and this was of great value as we could view could forecast visits for the week ahead making planning [with my relative] that much easier”.