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.

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 demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported, and people and relatives gave positive feedback regarding the care they received. However, not all care and support plans accurately reflected people’s current support care needs and preferences, to guide staff in delivering personalised care. This was found at the last inspection. For example, 1 person’s care plan lacked detailed information regarding their personal care needs and preferences. There was no information regarding how the person liked their personal care tasks to be completed including products they liked, or any information regarding their preferred morning routine.

The provider ensured people received continuity of care. Care was delivered by a small and consistent group of staff, which supported continuity and helped people feel comfortable with those providing their support. However, staff told us they did not consistently receive their rotas in advance. While this had not yet resulted in missed or disrupted care, this increased the risk to the continuity and reliability of care delivery. Improvements were needed to ensure rotas were issued promptly and reliably, reducing the likelihood of any future impact on people’s care.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider demonstrated an understanding of the Accessible Information Standards and the need to provide information in formats suited to individual needs. However, they failed to ensure people’s level of understanding was thoroughly assessed using mental capacity assessments. This meant the provider could not be assured that the information they provided was suitable and tailored to their needs. Whilst people were able to request access to their electronic care records, the provider did not ensure these were always accurate and up to date.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. A complaints procedure was in place, and the service had received minimal formal complaints. However, people and their relatives provided mixed feedback regarding the communication they received from the provider and whether the provider took appropriate action when a complaint or concern was raised. We were not assured the provider consistently discussed changes to people’s care with them or their representatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People and their relatives told us the provider was flexible and was available to speak out of hours in case of an emergency. The provider ensured continuity of care by directly providing support when staff were absent due to sickness.

People and their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to any experience of inequality. Since the last inspection, the provider and staff had completed training in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion to ensure they had the necessary knowledge to support people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailor their care, support and treatment in response to this.

At the time of our inspection, no people were receiving end-of-life care. The provider and staff had completed online training in end-of-life care. However, as found at the last inspection, people’s care and support plans 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.