Dorset office

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 75 (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.

Throughout our inspection, the registered manager consistently demonstrated care delivery was person-centred and records supported this. Care plans were devised for individuals and there were no duplicate records such as generic falls risk assessments for example.
When someone started receiving a service, staff would speak with the registered manager before about them as well as reading their care plan so they would know something about the person before visiting them. They also spent time to get to know people better to further improve how person-centred the service was.
Staff understood person-centred care and said, “Best point of my job would be the fact that I am able to positively impact other people’s lives by supporting them complete their daily activities while maintaining their dignity and being person centred.”

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.

The provider worked with people to ensure their care was delivered as they wanted, for example, when people preferred female carers. When possible female carers were always provided with male carers only supporting with tasks such as hoisting if a second team member was needed. Similarly, in situations when people found receiving care and having strangers in their homes difficult, small team of carers would attend to ensure the person felt at ease.
The provider supported people with complex needs and had worked flexibly to adapt care and care teams to enable them to continue to receive support specific to their needs.

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

The provider could present information in larger print formats as required. The system was also accessible to people and their authorised representatives so they could access current care plans, risk assessments and care records.
The provider could supply information such as policies and procedures in large print formats and, if needed would seek advice about other formats such as braille.
In addition to written information, the provider had used symbols and images to enable a person to be safe in their home. For example, using images to remind them not to leave the door open.

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 had a policy and procedure in place that set out the steps someone would need to take if they had a complaint, and information on how to complain was available to people and their relatives. The provider acknowledged complaints and concerns within 24 hours of receiving them and completed an investigation before providing the complainant with a thorough response.
When possible, concerns raised were dealt with informally. People and their relatives could contact the registered manager and senior care staff who supported them in addressing day-to-day concerns to facilitate person-centred care. All care was focused on people’s individual needs and wishes and the ‘open-door’ approach taken with both people and staff enabled this.

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

Staff supported people to access healthcare services. The provider enabled staff to attend people’s homes outside of scheduled visits if needed. A person who was monitored by their relatives using a camera; should they place themselves at risk of harm, the provider agreed staff would attend to support them to ensure their safety.
Should things go wrong overnight, the provider told us they could provide necessary support in emergency situations. For example, If a person fell and needed to have an ambulance attend, staff would remain with the person until either a relative or the paramedics arrived. In the event a staff member was unwell, they arranged cover with colleagues to ensure people received their scheduled support.

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 completed training in equality and diversity however most staff had completed it more than 2 years ago and would benefit from an update. The providers aims and objectives stated, “Respect the religious, cultural, ethnic and personal preferences of adults with needs while matching how these needs are met with these preferences in mind.” Services were provided to people to meet their needs in a person-centred way, tailored to preferences regardless of protected characteristics under the Equalities Act.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider supported people with end of life planning however did not do this at initial assessment unless absolutely necessary. The registered manager told us they would form a relationship with the person before tackling difficult conversations and would find out information about end of life plans in a more conversational way rather than a formal meeting.

Information about ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ documents was held in all care plans regardless of whether there was an end of life plan or not. This was flagged on their electronic system to ensure staff could access this information when necessary

The provider had supported people with complex end of life care, for example when a person had declined all healthcare input, this had been respected. A staff member told us, “I assisted people stay in their home where they feel most safe for as long as they can by providing them top quality care.”