Archived: Initial Care Services South East 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. The rating for the Responsive key question was previously Requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. However, the quality statements we assessed: Equity in experience and outcomes were scored at Inadequate.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

At our last inspection we found that people’s care was not tailored to their individual needs and preferences. People’s equality and diversity was not respected or protected. At this inspection we found similar concerns. The registered manager still lacked the knowledge on how to support people with a learning disability, when reviewing and implementing their care. People’s ability to make decisions was not respected or assessed and instead decisions were made by family members.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.