GFI@112

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This service scored 68 (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.

Language used in care planning and daily notes was not consistently respectful or person centred. Care plans did not always include detailed information about people’s health conditions or clearly describe how these impacted them in their day-to-day lives.

However, the provider demonstrated that they worked in partnership with people and their relatives to develop care plans. These reflected people’s preferences and were updated to respond to changes in their needs. Staff told us, “I take time to observe how the person communicates, what they like and dislike, and how they prefer to be supported. I speak with colleagues, families and professionals where appropriate. Over the first few shifts, I build a picture of their routines, goals and what helps them feel safe and comfortable.”

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.

The provider had a stronger background in supporting people with expressing feelings or emotional reactions, rather than the delivery of clinical care. Although the provider had undertaken training to support people with clinical needs safely, 1 person’s relative told us they had found the transition between care from a previous provider and GFI@112 “very difficult.”

External professionals told us communication was not always effective. A professional told us, “I have only had limited communication with the managers of the service only, and although they are generally friendly and helpful, their communication with me, is usually very slow in response.” The registered manager acknowledged that there were difficulties in obtaining information from professionals involved in people’s care. They told us they worked closely with people’s relatives to ensure important information was shared where possible. Feedback was given to the provider to support improvements in their communication and working relationships with professionals.

However, the provider demonstrated a flexible approach to care delivery, working in partnership with relatives and other services to promote continuity of care. They also worked with funding authorities to ensure people received the appropriate level of support to meet their needs.

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

The provider used easy read formats for people who required information presented in an accessible way, for example, a staff member used pictures to support a person to tell the provider how they were feeling about their care. A person’s relative shared an example of when they had made a complaint about care provision, and told us, “[Manager] came and shared pictures with [person] so [they] could tell us how they felt [about their care].” This meant people were provided with meaningful, accessible opportunities to give feedback to the provider.

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 their relatives were able to share feedback with the provider and confirmed they felt listened to. A person’s relative told us, “When we had a problem the service manager came to visit us and used [easy read format] to get [person’s] opinion. I feel that [they] listen to me.”

The provider had a complaints policy which was also available in an alternative easy read format for people who needed it. The provider had received 2 complaints over the period we reviewed, which had both been resolved to people’s satisfaction.

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

The service provided flexible support in response to people’s changing needs. The provider operated an effective on-call system, shared between members of the leadership team, to ensure staff had access to guidance and support in emergency situations.

The provider ensured continuity of care by maintaining a consistent team of staff, even during periods of absence. This supported people to maintain their routines and reflected an understanding of the importance of consistency in meeting individual needs.

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 equality and diversity training. Staff understood the importance of delivering care that respected people’s protected characteristics, cultural backgrounds, values, and religious beliefs. Staff told us, “I support people by focusing on what matters most to them and helping them achieve their personal goals and outcomes. This starts with understanding their needs, preferences, strengths, interests, and aspirations through their care plan and regular conversations with them and, where appropriate, their families.”

Leaders demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people were able to access opportunities with reasonable adjustments in place, for example, working with providers to ensure activities were accessible for people with protected characteristics.

We did not find any evidence to show people experienced inequality when accessing care from the provider.

People were not always supported to plan for significant life changes, however, this should be considered in the context of the service and people who received the regulated activity of personal care.

The provider was working in partnership with parents to deliver complementary support, particularly in relation to supporting people to express feelings or emotional reactions, and meeting current needs. However, care plans stated that emergency services should be contacted in the event of an emergency. Staff encouraged people to develop independent living skills around their personal care needs. This meant people were supported to build confidence in managing their own care in the future.