My Pillar 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 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 had their needs and preferences met. A relative told us, “The registered manager has visited us often to discuss my relatives care, and they are always accommodating when it comes to changes of timings.” The staff told us they got to know people well and care plans were updated as they did to reflect people’s individual preferences. The registered manager told us that they reviewed care plans when people’s needs and preferences changed. Care plans showed staff information about people’s individual preferences such as personal details, including information about preferred pronouns, information about culture, religion, shared routines, community involvement and family connections were all included.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people had their diverse health and care needs met and people received continuity of care and support. People received support from regular staff who protected their rights. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] rights are protected, and they have not encountered any barriers regarding their care and support in fact the provider is the best care they have ever received.” The registered manager told us they worked to ensure people were supported by staff who understood their needs. Staff provided continuity of care as they worked with the same people and had access to information in the electronic system about previous calls which meant they stayed up to date on people’s care needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us they provided information in different formats for people based on their assessed communication needs. Staff told us there were assessments in place which guided them on how to communicate with people. Care plans included information about people’s communication needs and how these should be met. People and their relatives confirmed the provider ensured people could access information about their care in a way they understood. A relative told us, [Person’s name] does get information about their care in a way they can understand. [Person’s name] can tell you things verbally but can’t write or fill in forms. The staff are good at enabling them to choose things for example, their meal plans they are done in picture form.”

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 registered manager told us they had systems in place to seek people’s feedback and learn from this, including a complaints procedure. We saw where people had made complaints these had been investigated and a response had been shared, with learning applied and changes made. People and relatives were aware of how they could share feedback about the service but had mixed views about how effective this was. Some relatives shared they had raised complaints, and whilst a response had been given, they did not feel the issues were fully addressed. Other relatives shared examples of where improvements had been made following raising concerns. A relative told us, “Very often when I visit my relative the staff have been and gone so I don’t see them and what or how they are doing things. I told them I wanted them to write up in what they had done on each visit and share it with me I can now access to the electronic notes system which I find very useful.”

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received responsive care which met their need and preferences. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] right are protected, and they have not encountered any barriers regarding their care and support in fact the provider is the best care they have ever received compared to past agencies.” Staff understood people’s care needs and could describe how they provided the support people needed. The registered manager told us the systems ensured people could access the support they needed. Records showed people were supported to access the wider health care system and this was supported by people’s experiences, for example, a person told us, “The staff remind me of dates for my hospital appointments as I would forget. They also come with me to these appointments.”

The provider had systems in place to ensure people did not experience inequality by making adjustments to meet people’s needs. People and relatives shared experiences of how staff adjusted how people were supported to meet their needs. A relative told us they had worked with the service to change the timings in a care plan to help their relative who has dementia, this had been successful in ensuring the person had their needs met. Staff could share examples of how they supported people to meet their needs. For example, staff described how they worked with people who could become anxious or distressed using the information in care plans to try and prevent or reduce the person becoming distressed and using the knowledge they had about the person to distract them and help them calm down. The registered manager told us how people who become distressed had a positive behaviour support plan in place which was used to plan peoples care, records we saw supported this.

People were not consistently supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their lives. A relative told us the provider had been made aware their relative was now end of life but there had been no discussion about a plan being in place. Staff told us they had received end of life care training and understood how to support people when they came to the end of their life. The electronic system does have a future wishes care plan in place, but these had not been completed at the time of the inspection. This meant we could not be assured people’s needs and preferences had been considered. The registered manager told us they would review this and ensure everyone has had discussions about their future wishes included in their care plans.