South East London

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.

This is the first inspection of this service. This key question has been rated 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.

People’s care plans were clear about the importance of engaging them in conversations about the things that mattered to them. People confirmed they were involved in the development and review of their care plans and risk assessments. They were aware they could seek a change in how their care was provided and were confident that such changes would be made.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly. Staff understood their responsibility to report any changes in people’s care and support needs. The registered manager told us that where changes were required to people’s care and support, these were discussed and agreed with them, in partnership with relevant professionals, where appropriate.

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’s assessments included information about their health and care needs and staff engaged with other professionals involved in their care and support, where appropriate. The provider was knowledgeable about people’s cultural and faith needs, and information about these was included in their care plans. Staff were recruited from communities local to people’s homes. Where possible, people were matched with staff who understood their cultural, faith or language needs. Each person had a core team of staff who worked with them regularly. They were supported by a local team leader who covered unplanned absences to ensure people always received care and support from staff who new them well. Staff and people told us they appreciated this continuity of care. A staff member told us, “Because I know [person] well, I know what works for them. They don’t always want things done the same way each time, so we have to be flexible.”

The provider used the staff newsletter to update staff on cultural practices and religious festivals and events.

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

People told us they received the information they needed in a timely manner. People’s care plans, risk assessments and the service user guide were clear and written in plain language. Large print versions of information were provided if required.

The registered manager told us that, at the time of our inspection, no one required information in other formats or languages. However, they would always ensure information was tailored to people’s communication needs should this be required in future.

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.

The provider had systems in place for handling feedback and complaints. People told us they knew how to contact the service and were satisfied with the responses they received. They were aware of the provider’s complaints procedure. A person said, “I haven’t used it because they always sort things out when I tell them I have a problem.” People confirmed they were involved in making decisions about their care and had been informed about any changes to their care plans.

The provider encouraged feedback from people on a regular basis. The feedback records showed high levels of satisfaction with the care and support people received.

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

Staff liaised with other professionals to ensure people were supported to access the care, support and treatment they needed. People’s care records showed staff had worked with other health professionals, such as district nurses, to ensure any concerns were addressed. The registered manager and other staff participated in regular monthly meetings with the multi-disciplinary teams of professionals involved in people’s care.

People were supported to choose and agree how and when they wished their care and support to be provided. The service was flexible, and people were aware that they could request changes to their care plans. The provider operated an out of hours on-call system which meant people and staff had access to a manager should they require advice or support at any time of day or night.

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’s care plans included information about their cultural, social and other diversity needs. Guidance for staff was included to ensure the care and support they provided was respectful of individual needs and preferences.

The provider’s equality and diversity policies and procedures reflected current best practice. All staff has received equality and diversity training. Staff were provided with up-to-date information about best practice in supporting people likely to experience inequality at regular meetings and through the monthly staff newsletter.

People were 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 care plans included information about their end of life wishes where they wished to provide this. The registered manager recognised people may not always wish to discuss end of life care. However, this would be sensitively reviewed with people, or their relatives where appropriate, should there be a need.

The service was not supporting people nearing the end of life at the time of our inspection. The registered manager told us training would be provided to staff if, at any point, they were supporting people in receipt of palliative or other end of life care.