St Elizabeth's Domiciliary Care Agency

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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.

People were at the centre of their care and support. This was in partnership with people that were important to them. We found examples where support was tailored to each person’s needs, preferences, and routines.

Care plans were flexible and were adapted when people’s circumstances or goals changed. For example, staff were able to confidently speak about what was important to the people they supported and gave examples about how they had adapted their approach to support the person as they wished.

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 were supported to build relationships in their local communities.

The provider’s strategic vision was to continue supporting people integrating in their local community.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We found examples of easy read format where appropriate.

The provider ensured people’s care plans were developed in a way that they were accessible and meaningful to the person. When speaking to people they felt it was important to know what was written about them.

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 and relatives fed back 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.

The provider was good at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff felt that people received support that promoted equality, where they felt this was not the case they advocated for individuals. Staff felt that the relationships between staff and people they supported promoted a respectful and equal relationship.

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.

People were supported to take part in activities that were meaningful to them, such as volunteering, attending social groups, or pursuing hobbies. For example, one person enjoyed being pampered so a day at the spa with their friend was organised. One person was keen attending sporting events at different locations and was supported to do this.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider supported individuals who attended college. They were linked to the college learning and the support provided with in people’s home. This meant staff and people were continuously having conversations about “what is next” for that individual and what are the long-term goals for people when they finish college.

Where people had conditions that would affect their ability to make informed decisions later in life the staff team were supporting people. For example, whilst one person was able to make decisions, they visited potential places to live which would meet their future needs when their health changes.

The staff also recognised where people have life limiting conditions that they have the discussion with people about their end of life wishes.