Oswestry Also known as Approved Care and Support

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 68 (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 received person centred care which met their needs and preferences. People told us, their needs were met. A person told us, “They speak to me and listen, they ask what I want and do what I prefer. They are always respectful and treat me and my home with dignity.” Staff also had a good knowledge of person-centred care telling us, “Not everyone has the same needs or can do the same things, we have to care for the person and consider what they like and want.”

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 and their relatives told us they felt supported by a staff team who understood their needs. We saw processes in place that enabled smooth information sharing between external agencies and within the staff team. This helped ensure people received care and support in a coordinated way that reflected the diverse health and social care needs of the local community.

However, we found some information was not always included in care plans and risk assessments as required. This created a risk that important details could be missed, particularly in situations where timely and accurate information is critical.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We reviewed a person’s care plan which noted they were unable to communicate verbally due to their health needs. The plan recognised the person could understand verbal cues and used gestures such as thumbs up and head nods to communicate with staff. However, there was no communication care plan in place, and there was no evidence of involvement from a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) to support their communication needs. Following sharing this with the registered manager the person’s care plan was updated to reflect their needs.

We also found no evidence of easy-to-read documents or picture formats being used to aid understanding. Despite this, we were told people were involved in their care planning process and that reviews took place every six months.

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.

We saw the provider had a process for people to share complaints and compliments. We saw 3 complaints, all had been acknowledged, investigated and responded to within a timely manner. We saw a Christmas card competition was being held to find a design for a card to be sent to all people who used the service. We also saw a Christmas meal had been arranged for people and staff. Staff shared how they were looking forward to this.

We saw the provider had completed service user feedback questionnaires and had collated the feedback. Most of the feedback received was positive. A relative told us, “Our concerns are listened to, and actions are taken, we are happy with their responses to anything we raise.”

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

Staff supported people to access services within the community when needed. People and their relatives told us staff provided the support they needed. We were told, “They’re accommodating- they have a window of care call time but if we say they need to be with us by a certain time they always facilitate these requests.”

Staff described how they aimed to go above and beyond to meet people’s needs. For example, one staff member told us they had helped a person put up their Christmas tree and planned to collect extra decorations as requested. We also saw evidence of the provider organising a Christmas meal and engaging with the local community, which demonstrated a commitment to promoting inclusion and wellbeing.

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 had equity in experience and outcomes. Staff undertook training about equality and diversity. The provider 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.

Management was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and were able to tell us the action they would take if concerns arose. There were systems in place to consider people’s experiences in care.

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.

We found where people were nearing the end of their life, there needs had not been fully assessed. We found no evidence to show individual goals or plans were in place regarding end-of-life care. Staff told us they helped people to retain skills and independence as much as possible.