Pivotal Home Care

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

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service had an up-to-date policy and appropriately identified people’s individual communication needs to make sure information was always provided in an accessible way where required.

An Accessible Information policy was in place. The Accessible Information Standard puts an onus on services to identify, record, flag, share and meet the information and communication needs relating to people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss.

The registered manager and staff understood the accessible information standard. Regular staff new people well. Staff gave examples to demonstrate how they would support people to communicate. They told us people were given every opportunity to participate, and they adapted their approach to people’s changing needs.

A visiting professional highlighted good practice from the staff. They told us, “I observed [registered manager and staff] regularly checked on the [person’s] comfort and care needs; the [person] has cognitive impairment…however, [staff] supported the [person’s] communication needs by asking [person] closed questions and using visual cues and gestures to help [person] express their wishes and wants…[staff] sat next to the [person] or stooped to their eye level to support ease of communication with them. I observed that the [person’s] body language was relaxed when [staff] interacted with them. The [person] made eye contact with [staff] and smiled back at them when they interacted with [person]. In my view, all this shows a positive relationship between the [person] and [staff].”

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 were supported to raise concerns. The service user guide provided information on how to complain. Care plans kept in people’s houses also contained information on how to complain.

The staff we spoke with were confident the service was responsive to any concerns raised and told us the registered manager was quick to respond.

There had been no formal complaints in the previous 12 months.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 had a good understanding of the people who used the service and took steps to minimise any barriers to inclusion. They told us, “Yes, we have to try and need to be a voice for [person].” A visiting healthcare professional told us, “I have seen Pivotal carers monitor any changes in his presentation closely, so they can advocate for him to ensure he continues to be as safe and as well as he can be. They raise all concerns appropriately with GPs / nurses / therapists and the client's next of kin to keep him safe at home.”

Staff expressed concern during the assessment about people who needed access to more activities and increased access to the wider community. This was raised with the local authority safeguarding team during the assessment.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.