Residential Care Services 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 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Although people generally received personalised, person-centred care and support that met their day-to-day needs, this was not provided within a cohesive framework that supported people to aspire, reach their dreams and live their best lives. Two people living at the service allowed us to see their rooms. We noted that they had not always been supported to personalise their rooms, so they reflected the people’s interests and wishes. One bedroom had a suitcase at the entrance, when asked if the person was going on holiday, they replied, “No that is there since I moved in.”

Notwithstanding the above staff knew people well and treated them as individuals, providing care that was tailored to each person. Relatives were informed of changes to people’s needs. A relative said, “Staff are good at communicating changes and let us know if they have concerns.”

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 received care from a consistent staff team who had worked with people for some time. Relatives we spoke with confirmed there was a stable staff team which helped their family member have consistent care and support.

One relative told us, “They always inform me if [person] has any appointments or meetings that I may wish to attend.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider was not able to demonstrate compliance with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The AIS sets out how providers and commissioners of NHS and publicly funded adult social care services should ensure disabled people and people with impairments or sensory loss can access and understand information about NHS and adult social care services.

The service did not provide information to people in accessible ways so they could understand the information as independently as possible. Whilst we saw that some documents such as activity plans, fire escape information and how to make complaints were available to people, these were produced in small fonts and the pictures, when available, were difficult for us to see and did not appear to relate to the information. Activity plans were also situated behind filing cabinets in the kitchen, making it difficult for people to see and access. We observed the same in relation to information in people's bedrooms, in that information was not updated. For example, the providers how to complain information and fire evacuation information were in some instances torn. The registered manager had not noted this as part of their audit process.

The provider had not considered whether people’s care records could have been provided in an alternative format, for them to be able to access the information they contained. Support plans were all text-based and not available to people in alternative formats.

Notwithstanding the above in many instances people’s communication needs were met, and staff understood people’s gestures, body language and vocalisations.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care and support.

The surveys for people living in the home with communication needs did not have any qualitative data and were limited to yes and no answers and were carried out by people supported by staff. One form we saw had the person’s name on it but not filled in with any further details. We did not see action plans or a follow up in place after a survey was completed and we could not see evidence of how the feedback was then used to help improve the service.

The provider had a complaints policy in place, and they had received no complaints. The registered manager told us any complaint would have been recorded in the incident book and managed in line with policy.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed, when they needed it. Discussions with the manager demonstrated a clear understanding of how to access specialist health and social care services, including referrals to external professionals such as speech and language therapists, when required and care records evidenced this.

Out of hours support was in place, covered by the management team to ensure staff always had access to advice and support. A staff member we spoke to said, “We have access to the senior support worker and the manager whenever we need support, they are always available.”

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.

Care plans included information about people’s individual needs, backgrounds and lifestyle choices. This helped staff provide support that reflected people’s preferences and protected characteristics.

Relatives told us people’s rights were respected and that staff considered people’s cultural and religious needs where required.

The provider had arrangements in place to support people who may develop end of life care needs. The provider had a policy in place, which included how to navigate both planned and unexpected pathways. The provider understood their role in supporting people at the end of their life and had arranged training in this area for staff.

People did not require any support with end-of-life care at the time of our assessment.