Centred Healthcare

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 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.
The staff team worked together to provide consistent, person-centred care and support. For example, increasing or decreasing the call length when needs changed after discussing this with the person, and adjusting call times to suit them.
 

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.
Where 1 person was supported by more than 1 service or by unpaid carers, there was a lack of evidence that staff worked in a transparent, collaborative, flexible and open way to make sure care was joined up for them. For example, there was a lack of communication and sharing of updates with other services.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
There was information in care plans about people’s communication needs. This meant the service could ensure information was supplied in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People were provided with important information including how they could complain and important contact details. Documents could be provided in different formats if required.
Staff understood data protection requirements and information was collected and shared appropriately and legally.

However, where documents including care plans were updated in the office, these were not always shared with the person. We raised this with the provider, and they addressed this before the inspection had concluded.
 

The complaints and incidents log was combined and did not record the date of the complaint or incident, only the date it was resolved. This meant we couldn’t see evidence that complaints had been resolved in a timely manner. The complaints log did not always state who the complaint was relating to or the actions taken.
However, the provider supported people to share feedback and ideas about their care, treatment and support.
One person told us, “[staff] always come and check if I am happy with the care.”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
People felt they received the care and support they were being funded for or paying for. They felt staff knew them well and responded to their needs. People generally found the care to be reliable and flexible.
When required staff supported people to attend health appointments or contact other services.
However, as previously stated for 1 person there was a lack of joined up working with other professionals which could have put the person and staff at risk. Following our feedback, action was being taken to address this.
 

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 received training in equality and diversity. This was reflected in discussions with staff.
Care plans and daily records evidenced that staff provided culturally appropriate care for example, supporting people to make favourite, traditional dishes specific to their ethnicity.
 

At the time of this assessment the provider did not support anyone who was in receipt of end-of-life care. However, there was no evidence that people were supported to plan for important life changes. Staff had not completed end of life training.
However, there was evidence that staff supported people to fulfil their goals and aspirations. For example, they had supported someone to improve their independence by gradually reducing care calls and regularly reviewed their care and support.