Because We Care Northampton

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported, and people and relatives gave positive feedback regarding the care they or their loved one received. However, care plans did not consistently provide enough detail regarding people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, to guide staff when delivering personalised care. For example, whilst staff have recorded where people have displayed emotions such as anxiety and had provided reassurance, there was limited information in people’s care records on how people’s emotional wellbeing was monitored and supported.

Leaders ensured people received continuity of care. People were supported by a small group care workers, which helped build trust and familiarity and enabled staff to better understand people's preferences and needs. However, training records showed not all staff, including leaders, had received training to support them in understanding the needs of the people they were supporting, including continence management and dementia awareness.

People and their relatives reported they received good communication from staff and leaders. Leaders demonstrated an understanding of the Accessible Information Standards and the need to provide information in formats suited to individual needs. People had access to information regarding their care and support, including key contact details.

People and their relatives told us they felt listened to and experienced good communication with both staff and leaders. One person shared, “I’ve just had them (care calls) adjusted a little bit as I wanted to stay up a little bit longer at night and they’ve acted promptly there.” A complaints procedure was in place, and the service had received minimal formal complaints. However, not all relatives reported receiving feedback or outcomes after raising concerns, which limited their confidence in how issues were followed up.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Leaders were available to speak with people out of hours in case of an emergency.

Whilst people and their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to any experience of inequality, not all staff, including the registered manager and acting manager, had completed training in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion to ensure staff and leaders had the necessary knowledge to support people fairly and equally.

The registered manager informed us, in previous instances where end-of-life care had been provided, staff collaborated with external professionals such as district nurses and palliative care teams. At the time of our inspection, no people were receiving end-of-life care. However, the provider had not ensured staff and leaders had received training in end-of-life care. Furthermore, people’s care records did not consistently reflect that people had been offered the opportunity to discuss or document their end-of-life preferences to ensure that care provided was aligned with their wishes during the final stages of life.