Delore Care Woking

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 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 made sure people were at the centre of planning their care and responded to any changes in people’s needs.

People told us staff provided their care in the way they preferred. Relatives said they had been involved in developing their family members’ care plans and the provider had listened to their views.

Relatives were also involved in reviews of their family members’ care. One relative told us, “[Field Care Supervisor] came recently to review the care plan and make any changes that we felt appropriate.”

One relative suggested a way in which their family member’s experience of care could be improved. We shared this with the provider, who agreed to use this feedback to improve the person experience of care.

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 told us the same staff visited them regularly, which they said was important to them. One person said, “I have the same carer apart from a Wednesday when she has a day off; we have good routine.”

Relatives also emphasised the importance of consistent care provided by regular staff. One relative told us, “[Family member] has good continuity of care and feels safe with her carers.” Another relative said, “[Family member] has two or three different carers a week; she knows them all.”

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

People’s communication needs were discussed during their initial assessments and recorded in their care plans. The provider confirmed that information could be provided in alternative formats should this be needed.

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.

People told us they had opportunities to give their views about the care they received. Relatives said the provider was proactive in seeking feedback and responsive to any changes requested. One relative told us, “The company ask for feedback to make sure we are happy with what they provide. I have no complaints.” Another relative said, “The company are very receptive. They request feedback and have actioned any suggestions we have made to suit [family member’s] preferences.”

The provider made sure people could access the care and support they needed in a timely way. People’s care was planned in a way which worked for them, and which promoted dignity, equality, and human rights.

The provider used people’s feedback and other evidence to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics. The provider was alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage who used the service, and proactively sought to address barriers to improve people’s experience.

People’s religious and cultural needs were discussed at their initial assessments and recorded in their care plans. The PIR included examples of how the provider had responded to people’s religious and cultural needs. One person’s care visit was timed to support them to get ready for church. Another person’s visits were planned so staff were available to take them to and pick them up from Friday prayers at the mosque.

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.

People were able to discuss their preferences about the care they wished to receive towards the end of their lives. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss this aspect of their care.

If people had recorded their wishes about the care they wished to receive in an emergency on a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form, their support plans detailed where this was kept should it be needed.