Alchita Care Limited of Bradford

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 50 (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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff were able to explain how they supported people; however, this was not reflected in care plans. This meant people were at risk of receiving inconsistent care and treatment. Although care records were person centred, we found inaccurate information regarding people’s healthcare conditions and the potential impact of these conditions on their daily lives. For example, we found 1 care record stated a person was non-verbal, however, a staff member told us this person could communicate verbally. Furthermore, people’s care records had not been reviewed and contained incorrect or out of date information. The provider was unable to demonstrate formal reviews of people’s care were completed, which would provide staff with up-to date information on how to meet people’s specific care needs.

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 were no systems in place to monitor and review care and care records did not evidence people’s diverse health and care needs. People told us they did not receive care from a consistent staff team. One person told us, “I get fed up with new carers, but I guess I’m lucky to have them at all.”

People, relatives and external professionals raised concerns regarding staff communication. Comments included, “Language can be a problem,” and “Language can be a barrier” and “Communication can be an issue.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Although no concerns were raised regarding people receiving the information they needed, there was no evidence information was available in ways that were accessible, safe, and secure. The provider was not working in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), for example care plans and meeting minutes were not available in accessible formats. Staff demonstrated they understood people’s varied communication needs however, communication needs were not assessed and there was no communication plans put in place. There was no policies and procedures in place regarding AIS and General Data Protection Regulation.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Although people and their relatives told us they were involved in care reviews, 1 person said, “Yes, reviews take place. I am always there as well” this was not evidenced in care records. While recent surveys had been completed for staff and people using the service, there was no evidence that any action had been taken in response to feedback given.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Although we struggled to access the service during the assessment as the registered manager was providing care, staff and people who used the service reported no issues with assessing support. However, the provider did not record how people could access care, support and treatment when they needed it.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Care plans did not evidence how the service considered people’s protected characteristics or how they made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. Although the provider worked with external professionals, there was no process in place to ensure this was consistent for all people. Staff did not demonstrate they understood potential discrimination and inequality for people who use the service.

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. There were no systems in place to ensure people were offered the opportunity to engage in discussions about their future wishes. There was no information available regarding supporting people at the end of their life. Although there was no one receiving end of life care, staff had not completed any training to equip them with the knowledge needed to support people if their needs changes quickly.