3D Healthcare Solutions 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 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 provided detailed information about people’s communication, sensory needs, likes and dislikes. The care plans were reviewed 3 monthly, and sooner if required, in line with the provider’s policy.

The provider worked with people to ensure care was person-centred and reflected their preferences and daily routines. People were comfortable with the staff assisting them and appeared content.

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 care records provided clear evidence the provider collaborated closely with other health services such as mental health teams, GPs, and other specialists. This partnership approach was designed to ensure people received the right support tailored to their needs.

Relatives confirmed people had access to the care they needed. One relative said, “They book all the appointments as and when needed and make sure they attend. It helps me a lot, and I know they will always keep me in the loop.”

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

Staff provided people and relatives with clear, accessible information about care, daily activities and changes in health needs. Relatives told us they were kept up to date through phone calls, visitation and review meetings.

All information made available to people’s relatives was available in alternative languages, as and when required. Information was also available in large print.

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.

People were listened to and involved in decisions about their care. It was clear people’s voice was sought and listened to. People and their relatives had been encouraged to take part in group meetings about the home, which considered their individual communication needs. This involved use of shorter, uncomplicated sentences spoken at a slower pace, and choices being given where possible. People and their relatives also had their feedback sought via care review meetings.

At the time of the inspection, there were no complaints in relation to care, from people or their relatives, over the last year.

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

People had access to healthcare, community activities and specialist support based on their needs. Staff supported people to access shops, social outings and local public transport as part of their weekly routines. People were supported to overcome barriers to ensure equal access to health and well-being support.

People’s care folders included pictures from specific events they had participated in which related to goals set by people. These included accessing the local community, exercising in the garden and any other activities people requested support to engage in.

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 were supported to access a wide range of activities based on their choices. The provider had systems to ensure people's feedback was received. Staff provided people with person-centred care and people were given choices and encouraged to follow their interests where appropriate. People were encouraged to maintain contact with loved ones so their independence was promoted, and the risk of social isolation was minimised.

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.

At the time of our assessment, no one needed end of life care; however, the provider did have a suitable policy in place for such circumstances.