Option Care Ltd

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Whilst care plans detailed a record of planned individualised care, the provider did not always make sure that, in practice, people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about the implementation of personalised care to reflect their individual wishes and preferences. Some people told us that person-centred care was not consistently delivered at all times and that their views and wishes were not always considered and acted upon. However, others felt the care was person centred and met their individual needs. One relative said, “When the care started the manager came and we explained what was required. We selected days and times.”

There was mixed feedback regarding people and their relatives having access to their care plan. One relative said told us, “There is a folder. The manager reviewed it after [my relative] went into hospital. Other people and their relatives told us they did not know if they had a care plan or how often it was reviewed. One person said, “They gave one 2 years ago and last month they made amendments.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

There was not a clear record to indicate that people received the care and support they were being funded for. For example, the provider’s call time data showed a number of occasions where staff had arrived late or not stayed for the full duration of people’s care visits. We saw no evidence of harm and the provider told us that they were assured people were receiving the right care at the right times. The provider told us the call data was unreliable due to technical errors. However, some people and their relatives told us that care calls were not always at the agreed time. Comments included, “They are late all of the time in the morning. Lately they don’t let me know” and, “They are rarely on time, yesterday was an hour late.” In contrast others told us that care visits were reliable. One person said, “They are not late and they have never missed a call, they always let me know.”

Whilst staff told us they would escalate any concerns or changes in need to senior staff, so that relevant referrals could be made, we saw evidence that this had not always been the case. The provider was aware of this and had actively taken steps to address.

We received mixed feedback from healthcare professionals about how well the provider worked with them to ensure good outcomes for people.

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

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. We reviewed care records for a person who had processes in place to ensure staff engaged with them using their preferred communication method. This included visual aids, tactile prompts (usingphysicaltouchtoassistthe person to completeatask) and communication boards. Staff had completed communication training which supported them to work in line with the accessible information standards. This met right support, right care and right culture guidance; procedures were in line with current best practice.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raisecomplaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people indecisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about whether they knew how to make a complaint, should the need arise. Some people told us that when they had raised issues, things had not been changed as a result. In contrast, other people shared they had made complaints about service delivery, and these had been rectified. One person said, “Yes, I have done and it all got resolved”.

We saw evidence of the provider engaging with people to complete a ‘customer review’ to gather their experience of the care provided. However, feedback from people and their relatives about this process was mixed as not everyone was aware of the review process.

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

The provider told us that, where possible, they offered flexibility for people, to receive their care at times which suited them. For example, when a local authority had requested additional support for a person to meet their needs on a temporary basis, the provider had agreed to accommodate. This meant that the person received continuity of care and received the support and treatment they needed when they needed it. One person said, “I decide which days they come. So certain jobs can be done on those days.”

The service offered an out of hours service, which meant people, their relatives, and staff could speak to a member of the leadership team if required, outside of usual office hours.

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 equality and diversity and there was an up-to-date Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Policy in place. Staff told us they were confident in carrying out their role and felt they were effectively equipped to meet the individual needs of people.

People were not always 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.

Care plans did not always contain information about people’s goal or aspirations for the future.

Whilst some discussions had taken place to ascertain if people had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), these were not consistent. Some care plans were blank in the DNACPR section and so the position was not always clear. This was particularly prevalent where the provider supported people who lived alone.

Records showed most staff had received end of life training.