Personalized Care Services

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

The service did not always make 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.

Care plans detailed each person’s particular needs, however, these at times required more detailed information support any changes in need. For example, where someone had a mental health need, there was a lack of information for staff to understand triggers, presentation and any actions required. Most people we spoke with felt their care needs were tailored to them as an individual. The service advised us how they planned to make improvements in the detail in people’s care plans to ensure important information was included.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There were robust systems in place to support people to receive care which was joined up with relevant services. Appropriate specific training was provided to staff to support people using the service, for example, stoma bag care. The service was also involved in several community activities and local care associations.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were provided detailed information when first using the service, including information relating to complaints. However, no safeguarding information or contact information was provided. People with particular communication needs were supported to have care plan documentation in an easy read format. We received mixed feedback regarding how well the service provided information to people using communication. One relative told us, “We have a communication book.” However, some people felt staff communication should be improved. The service told us how they will make improvements in this area.

The service 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 and staff were supported to be involved in discussions relating to care. People were provided survey questionnaires as to what their experience of care was, which did not show any concerns. This feedback was then analysed by leaders to identify any emerging themes or trends. People’s care was regularly reviewed with them, including when there were any changes to need. Staff told us they were given opportunities to discuss any concerns during team meetings or supervisions. People told us they were involved in reviews of their care. One relative told us, “We did have a review, me and [my relative] both took part.”

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

People who may be at increased risk of inequality under the Equality Act (2010), (EA, 2010), were supported to access the care they needed. For example, those with learning disabilities were helped with social support in the community. People with learning disabilities were also supported to be involved in care plan writing and given support with translation of information to ensure care plans were as accurate as possible. For example, particular phrases or sounds which were used to denote certain activities, such as food or toileting, were documented in care plans. The service produced an easy read care plan available for those who may have communication difficulties.

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 who were at increased risk of experiencing inequality under EA, (2010), were supported to access the community and be provided care and information in a way which was accessible to them. People were supported to discuss important aspects of their lives, which were well considered in care plans, for example, religious or sexual preferences. However, these were not always fully detailed in care plans. The service has told us how they planned to make improvements regarding care plan documentation.

People were not always 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.

There was not always evidence to show people had been given the opportunity to discuss end of life arrangements, or important decisions with people. There were a small number of people requiring end of life care in the service, and relevant end of life care plans were in place for these people. However, the opportunity to have this discussion was not consistent across the service, or discussions had not been documented. The service told us how they planned to make improvements in this area.