Genuine Carers - Oxford City

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.

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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Decisions about care were made in partnership with people, and staff worked with people and their relatives to respond appropriately to any changes in needs.

People received person‑centred care that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Relatives told us carers listened to them and responded to their requests. Staff told us they were kept informed of any changes to people’s needs and said communication between staff and the provider was good.

One relative told us, “Yes, they are good and especially flexible with [Person]. I was involved in the care plans. There is a slight language barrier, especially with [Person], so they repeat and go slowly.” This demonstrated staff adapted their approach to ensure people were supported in ways that met their individual circumstances. The registered manager recorded information about people’s likes and dislikes within care plans, which helped ensure care was tailored to each person.

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs and worked to ensure care was joined‑up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Information was shared appropriately to promote continuity of care, and the provider engaged with other healthcare professionals, making timely referrals when people’s needs changed.

Healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about how the registered manager and staff worked with them to achieve good outcomes for people.

Feedback from people using the service and their relatives, along with a review of visit logs, showed care staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of visits. People told us the service was reliable and punctual and said they were informed if staff were delayed. This helped ensure care was delivered safely and as planned.

People told us continuity of care had improved over time. One person said they were happy they “mostly had the same care staff,” which contributed to safer, more consistent and well‑coordinated care. Care staff told us they usually supported the same group of people, which helped them build relationships and maintain a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences. Some people and relatives said they had previously experienced a higher number of different staff, but this had improved. They now received care from a more stable and consistent team who knew them well, which had a positive impact on people’s confidence in the service and their overall experience.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats tailored to individual needs. People’s communication preferences were clearly documented in care plans, with guidance for staff on how to support effective communication. This helped ensure people were fully informed and involved in decisions about their care.

We did not receive any concerns from people about how information was provided. Staff confirmed they had access to the information they needed to deliver safe and effective care.

Information about people was collected, stored and shared in line with data protection legislation, ensuring confidentiality. The provider had an Accessible Information Standard policy in place to help ensure people received information in a format suitable for their needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, put forward ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and kept them informed about any changes made as a result of feedback.

There was a suitable complaints procedure in place, and people had been provided with a service user guide containing information about the service, contact details and how to make a complaint. People told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident speaking with the management team.

The provider sought feedback from people through surveys and telephone quality assurance calls. Relatives spoke positively about communication with the service. One relative told us, “[Staff member] rings me and we talk about how things can improve and how things are going. We filled in a survey two months ago — no feedback yet, but that may be because everything I said was positive. Communication is good and they do everything we ask.”

Another person told us, “They always ring if they are running late, and they also rang to see if everything was okay.” This demonstrated the provider actively listened to people and kept them informed, helping people feel involved and reassured.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed at the right time. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and supported them to access appropriate services promptly when required.

People did not experience discrimination in the way their care was delivered. The provider had effective policies in place to promote equality, diversity and inclusion, and staff had received training in equality, diversity and human rights. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to apply this training in their day‑to‑day practice.

Assessment and care planning processes took account of a wide range of needs, including disability, age, gender, religion, culture and other protected characteristics. This helped ensure people’s individual preferences and identities were recognised and respected, and that care was accessible and inclusive.

Staff and leaders actively listened to people who were at greater risk of experiencing inequality in their care, experience or outcomes. The registered manager assessed and planned for people’s diverse needs, identifying potential barriers to care and taking steps to reduce or remove them. For example, staff were matched with people who spoke the same language, and staff worked closely with people and their relatives to ensure needs were understood and met.

Staff undertook training to increase their understanding of diverse needs, including communication needs and sensory impairments. One professional described how staff effectively supported a person with a visual and auditory impairment, and a learning disability. Staff used visual cues and reassurance to support the person to engage confidently. This demonstrated how staff tailored communication and built trusting relationships to reduce inequalities and improve people’s experiences and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had sufficient time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Staff had completed training in person‑centred end‑of‑life care and understood the importance of providing sensitive and appropriate support during significant life changes.

Managers described a structured process to follow if a person’s condition changed. This included carrying out urgent reviews of care needs and making timely referrals to palliative care services where appropriate.

At the time of the inspection, no one using the service required end‑of‑life care. However, managers demonstrated the knowledge and skills needed to respond effectively should such needs arise. Care plans included relevant information, such as people’s preferences regarding resuscitation, where appropriate.