Athlone 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question required improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

People’s care plans needed more detail. We found care plans were variable. Whilst some areas included a good level of detail about people and their needs and preferences, other people’s care plans needed more information to provide staff with the guidance they needed. For example, there was a lack of detail about how some people liked to be supported to wash and get dressed. One person’s care plan stated they needed support to strip wash but did not provide any more details on their preferences regarding this.

However, people, when surveyed by the provider fed back, they felt staff understood their healthcare needs, preferences and wishes. Feedback from people was in the main positive. Although some people had told us new staff took time to get to know them, which could be improved with better care planning in places. The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People and their relatives were involved in planning the care people received. One relative told us, “I was present at several meetings with a carer and a manager and one person from social services as well. It didn’t take long to organise and as [my relatives] needs have increased, they have increased the care.” A person said, “I get the supervisor round, and she talks to me and asks if I am happy. They check if there’s anything they can do, I can’t praise them enough.”

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. Most people had a consistent team of care staff, although some people did have a larger team than others. However, feedback about the care people received was, in the main, positive. One relative told us, “The most important thing for [my relative], it’s the safety, regularity, familiarity of people that go in that care, for me it’s a sense of how [my relative] is, the interactions I have had, actually they care.”

The provider supplied some information in formats which were tailored to individual needs, but not all were fully accessible. The provider told us the current easy ready guidance was available but not on the electronic care system. Some people’s care plans could include more information about how people communicate so that this information was accessible to staff. For example, there could be more detail in some care plans when people did not communicate verbally. Other care plans did provide more details. Such as information about tools people used to communicate such as pictorial tools.

However, documents were available in large print and could be customised to size. The service also had access to a translation service if this was needed. People and their relatives fed back they knew how to complain if they needed to do so and who to contact in there were concerns.

People and their relatives told us they were kept informed and information was shared with them. One relative told us, “The carers are conscientious and keep us informed of any problems.”

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.

There was a system in place to raise complaints and concerns. Complaints were well investigated when they arose, and action was taken where needed. For example, staff completed re-training if this was appropriate. People and their relatives told us they were listened to when they fed back concerns and action had been taken to address any issues. Staff also reviewed if there were any lessons which could be learnt as a result of the complaint arising or how to complaint was responded to.

There was also a survey for people so they could provide their views. People told us they were asked for feedback about their care.

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

People told us office staff were accessible if they needed to speak with someone. One person said, “We can call them at any time of day, and they will answer the phone, it’s rare we call late at night but there would be an answerphone or some support, there must be someone monitoring it. They’ll call you [back] within 5 minutes.”

Staff knew how to contact relevant health care professionals on people’s behalf if they needed support to access healthcare.

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.

Staff completed training in areas such as equality and diversity, dementia and learning disabilities and autistic people. Staff used their skills and knowledge to support people effectively. For example, staff planned time with one person, prior to providing them with support, to establish the persons wishes for the day, as the person did not communicate verbally.

People were asked about their protected characteristics such as any religious or cultural support need. If people wanted support from a specific gender of staff this was accommodated.

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.

Staff had completed training to give them the skills and knowledge they needed to support people at the end of their life. People were offered the opportunity to discuss their care needs for the end of their life and make decisions about their future wishes. However, care plans would benefit from more information to provide staff with clear guidance. For example, care plans directed staff to provide comfort and reassurance to one person but didn’t provide any guidance on how to do so.