Civicare East Ltd Also known as Abacus Care (Essex) 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 79 (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 and relatives were very complimentary around the personalised care they received and how changes in their or their loved one’s needs were responded to. A relative told us, “It is all written up in the care plan, it documents trip hazards, smoke alarms and medical details. They (staff) also pay attention to [person], they always make them a cup of tea, they are like a friend.”

Staff told us they had time to get to know people and their preferred routines. Comments included, “I do get time to develop good relationships with people, it takes time to get to know people and gain their trust,” and “I do get to know people, if someone wanted a cooked breakfast I do it for them. Some people prefer a shower at night, choose their own clothes. People choose to have their care the way they want it.”

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 the service prepared a weekly rota and all of the people/relatives we spoke with told us the same core members of staff supported them; this ensured the service provided continuity and people were aware who would supporting them. Comments included, “Staff bring me a weekly rota, they do a very good job” and “I always have the same staff.”

People’s care plans documented their communication needs and information was provided in accessible formats tailored to an individual needs, this ensured people were able to access their information in their preferred way. For example, some people were provided with their information in a larger font style, or easy read formats (simplified language and visual aids). Staff understood the different types of communication needs regarding the people they supported. A member of staff told us, “Some people cannot hear very well so I make sure they have their hearing aids in, or I write things down.”

The provider was exceptional at enabling people, to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had excellent systems and processes in place to ensure people, their relatives and staff felt comfortable and confident to raise any concerns or issues. The provider ensured people were able to do this in a range of accessible ways. For example, the management team regularly visited people face to face to gather feedback on the quality of care and staff carried out regular care reviews. The provider posted a weekly ‘I statement’ online on their social media page for followers to cast their votes or share feedback.

People and their relatives told us they felt if they did have to raise anything with the service their concerns would be acted upon and taken seriously. People and relatives feedback was extremely positive, comments included, “I cannot rate them highly enough, for [person] and for us, they are always there,” and “They (management team), employ people with a mature and understanding nature. They are very consistent and very diligent.”

Effective arrangements were in place for gathering people’s and relatives’ views of the service provided and received. The views of people using the service and those acting on their behalf were at the core of the service's quality monitoring and assurance arrangements.

While most people using the service either had support from a relative/representative or were able to independently access the care, support and treatment they needed. They were confident the service would support them to access other external healthcare services should they need them to. Staff monitored people’s health needs, and the staff and management team supported people to access other external agencies when required. Any changes to people’s health needs were discussed with the person/ their relative and updated in their care plans.

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 provider ensured people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

Staff understood people’s right to receive care and support that met their individual needs. The learning and development manager gave us examples of proactive measures taken to raise awareness to members of the public when staff were supporting people out in the community who may experience discrimination or inequality. The service was also campaigning for relaxed events in the local community areas. For example, quieter times to visit supermarkets, the idea being this would provide a more inclusive and accessible environment for people with sensory sensitivities, neurodiversity, or other needs who may find busy areas overwhelming.

People’s care plans included a section for capturing information and discussions relating to their future planning, including their end of their life wishes. However, these contained limited information and could be further improved upon. The registered manager told us these conversations were sensitive and not everyone wished to discuss or had thought about their end of life care.

Staff had received end of life training and although people did not require any support with end of life care at the time of our assessment the registered manager knew how to make referrals to specialists and told us they would liaise with the local community hospice, district nursing team and the persons own GP when required.