HK Care Consulting 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 71 (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.

Relatives felt care was delivered in a person-centred way by staff who knew people well. One relative told us, “We were extremely anxious before, but we were recommended HK Care Consulting Limited. [Person] is living their best life, the staff love and care for [person].”

We saw care was individual and tailored to people’s needs. People had their preferences, likes and dislikes recorded in their care plans which showed staff what was important to people. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved with the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their care, this meant people were at the centre of this.

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.

The provider told us there were systems in place to monitor and review care. We saw these systems were followed when needed. The provider told us, where possible, they tried to ensure people received a consistent staff team to ensure the care they received was consistent. Relatives and care visit data we reviewed confirmed this.A relative explained, “We generally see the same staff, up to about 6 of them, staff work with [person] on a 2:1 basis, so [person] gets a mix of the staff they know really well.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

The provider told us information was available to people in different formats if they required this. They confirmed, and we saw people, had individual plans in place identifying their preferred method of communication.

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.

Relatives spoke confidently about the provider listening to them. Relative feedback was unanimously positive, with 1 explaining, “[Registered manager] is understanding, if I am not happy with something I will raise my concerns, we do have good communication, and we are open and transparent (with each other). She is a very good listener.” The relative confirmed anytime there had been a minor complaint, it had been resolved swiftly.

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

There were processes in place that could be followed if needed. The provider told us they had access to external agencies, who they could engage with if needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

Most people received support that met their individual needs and helped them to manage periods of distress safely. However, this was not consistent for everyone. For 1 person, records did not consistently demonstrate distressed behaviour was responded to in the least restrictive way, or that alternative strategies had been fully considered before sedative medicines were used. This meant the provider could not be assured the person had always received equitable support.

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.

The provider confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they were aware of action to take if needed and as part of their assessment process had considered people’s thoughts and preferences.