Purple Heart Health Care

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 assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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.

However, guidance for staff about important personalised information required improvement. We concluded this was primarily a recording issue, as staff knew people well and relatives were positive about the quality of care and support provided.

Relatives told us staff understood what mattered to their family members and supported them in a way that reflected their preferences and routines. A relative said, “The care staff are very helpful, [name] really likes all their care staff. They are a good team, [name] smiles when they see them.”

Care records confirmed people were supported with interests, hobbies and community opportunities.

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.

Staff collaborated with other professionals to ensure that people’s needs were met and made timely referrals as needed. For example, care records confirmed that the management team had made referrals to external healthcare professionals for further assessment and advice and also liaised with people’s social workers.

An external professional confirmed there was a positive, collaborative approach to partnership working. Comments included, “The service works closely with the child’s social worker to clarify and medical / support issues which I would not be able to address and have always been given feedback from their meetings.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, some improvements were made as to how people’s communication needs were assessed and planned for.

Further action was required to ensure the Accessible Information Standard (a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can be understood) was fully met. Guidance for staff was limited in detail. However, relatives were positive that staff knew and understood their family member’s specific communication needs. Whilst this demonstrated this was a recording issue, the lack of clear, written guidance meant new or unfamiliar staff would not have access to the information needed to communicate effectively with people. This created a risk that people might not consistently receive information in a way they could understand, potentially impacting their ability to express their views, make choices, and be fully involved in their care.

The provider’s service user guide provided people with information about what they could expect from the service, including relevant contact details. This also included useful information on independent advocacy services. The registered manager told us that this document could be made available in alternative formats, such as other languages, large print, and easy read.

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. However, the provider’s systems and processes were not fully effective.

The provider had quality assurance systems and processes in place. The registered manager told us they invited people, relatives, external professionals, and staff to complete a survey twice a year. However, they also advised us that the feedback from these surveys had not been analysed, and they were unable to provide evidence to confirm what we had been told. This meant the registered manager could not demonstrate how feedback was used to identify areas for improvement or drive positive changes in the service.

Relatives told us they had been asked to provide feedback on the service in the past, but this had not happened recently.

People had access to the provider’s complaint policy. Relatives told us they felt confident to make a complaint if required and were positive the registered manager would act on it and make improvements. The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints.

People received 3 monthly reviews of their care package or sooner if required. The registered manager also maintained regular contact with relatives, enabling them to make any required changes to the care package. This enabled people and or their relatives to be fully involved in their care.

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

The service was responsive to people’s changing needs. For example, the management team were as flexible as possible in facilitating changes to people’s care packages.

Relatives raised no concerns about care calls times. They advised late calls were minimal and usually due to unforeseen circumstances such as weather and traffic issues. Relatives consistently expressed positive feedback about the service they received.

People’s care records confirmed they received care from regular care staff.

Out-of-office procedures were available to support staff and people who used the service.

Staff were aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to escalating concerns to the management team to protect people from experiencing any barriers to their care and support.

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.

The registered manager made timely referrals to external health and social care professionals to support individuals in accessing the right care and support when needed. The service was flexible and adaptable in supporting people to achieve positive outcomes.

The management team and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support.The registered manager had previous clinical experience of working with young people with mental health needs and used this knowledge to help ensure people received equitable and inclusive care. Their experience supported the team to recognise potential barriers and respond sensitively to people’s individual circumstances, promoting fair access to services and support.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy providing guidance on the importance of treating people equally. This was further supported by staff training.

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.

There was a lack of recorded future planning, such as people’s individual goals and aspirations. This meant care plans did not fully reflect what people wanted to achieve or how staff could support them to work towards these outcomes. Without this information, there was a risk that opportunities to promote personal development, independence, and meaningful activity could be overlooked.

People’s end‑of‑life needs had not been discussed with them or their relatives. The registered manager told us this was a sensitive subject and, due to the age of the young people using the service, they did not feel it was required. They were, however, aware of the importance of assessing these needs for others and recognised that advance planning was a key part of person‑centred care. Without these discussions, there was a risk that people’s wishes and preferences would not be known or recorded should their circumstances change unexpectedly.