Best Care 4 U Stanmore

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 support they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved in making decisions about their care and support including when people’s needs changed. A relative told us,“Yes, everything is in the care plan. They ask me if its accurate” another said, “We get a review every 6 months and if situations change then it is reviewed again.”

Staff provided person‑centred care that reflected people’s needs, preferences and routines. Care plans were tailored, regularly reviewed and updated with input from people and their families. Staff understood how people liked to communicate, what was important to them and how best to support their wellbeing.

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 received coordinated and consistent care. Staff worked closely with health professionals to ensure needs were met and support remained joined‑up. Care plans showed professional input and were updated when changes occurred.

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

Care plans included clear information about each person’s communication preferences, helping staff provide responsive and person‑centred support. People and their relatives spoke positively about communication from the office and told us they felt well informed regarding their care.

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard Policy in place and staff received training in the five steps of the Accessible Information Standard so that they could communicate effectively with all users with special communication needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives confirmed they felt confident in the service taking appropriate actions should they raise a concern or complaint, which included looking into the issue thoroughly, communicating what was happening, being open about what had been found out and what the outcome was.

Comments from relatives included, “Never had to complaint but I would speak to [manager] and I know that [manager] would call me straight back,” and “[Manager] takes complaints seriously, I did complain once and it was nipped in the bud, [manager] has their finger on the pulse.”

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

People were supported to access health and social care services as required. Records showed staff routinely supported people to book and attend appointments with GPs and dentists and to access more specialist services if needed.

Managers also worked with health and social care partners to arrange new or replacement equipment where required, to prevent delays or disruption to care. Where equipment was in place, this was clearly documented within people’s care plans to support continuity and safe delivery of care.

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 and their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to any experience of discrimination and inequality from the service. Staff told us they knew people well and they showed an awareness of people’s individual needs, their differences, likes, dislikes and preferences.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy. People's care plans were person centred and set out aspects of people's characteristics, beliefs and preferences to ensure people's protected characteristics and needs were respected.

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.

People were given the opportunity to contribute to advance care planning should their health significantly deteriorate or if they required end‑of‑life care. Where people chose to share their wishes, this information was clearly recorded within their care plans to ensure staff could support them in line with their preferences. Family members were involved in these discussions where appropriate.

At the time of the inspection, the service was not supporting anyone at the end of their life.