Caroline Cares for You 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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key questiongood. At thisassessmentthe rating hasremainedgood.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We found that in practice, care was person-centred. This had come from staff working closely with people for a long time and learning about them through interactions. People and relatives told us that care felt person-centred and not task focused.

There were significant shortfalls within documentation, and person-centred care was not reflected. It was not always clear how people were involved in the formulation and review of their care and some plans and assessments were generic. Some plans and assessments lacked specific guidance for staff on how to tailor their approach to ensure it was person-centred, and this could impact people if they had new and unfamiliar staff supporting them.

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.

The provider had an on-call system in place, which ensured that people and staff had access to support, advice and guidance at all times.

We found that the provider worked well with external professionals when required and referrals were sent promptly. There was joined up working where people had care from other agencies or unpaid carers such as relatives or friends.

People received the hours of care they had paid for and some months, the providers summary reflected that people had received more care hours than they were scheduled to.

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

We found some information had been adapted into an easy-read format, for example, the provider’s statement of purpose.

At the time of the assessment, they did not care for anyone who need this, but it was there ready if needed.

There was room for improvement to ensure this was embedded across the service and ensure that more documents were available in a different format.

People did not have access to their care plans or assessments, as these were kept on a digital system. Some relatives had access to this, but not all people lived with or saw their relatives on a regular basis to be able to access these.

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 and relatives felt they were listened to and involved. We found that people, relatives and staff felt they could approach the provider with thoughts, suggestions and feedback at any time, and be listened to.

The provider regularly sought feedback from people, relatives and staff through surveys and analysed the information to make changes and improvements to their service.

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

People received the care they needed, regardless of any protected characteristics or personal circumstances. People were referred to external health professionals when there was a need, and the outcome of this involvement was embedded into their care.

There was room for improvement to ensure that all people’s rights were respected and upheld.

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 in a way that recognised and respected their individual needs. There was room for improvement to ensure this was reflected in their care plans and assessments.

Staff showed a good understanding of equality and diversity and applied this to their day-to-day practice.

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.

Lots of people had relatives or friends who supported them with this aspect and for most people, the provider was not commissioned for this type of support.

We found that people did not have end of life care plans in place and staff had not received training in this area. Staff had requested this training, however, this had not been actioned and embedded into the service.