Bikur Cholim Ltd

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 changed to 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 service 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. People’s care plans did not fully reflect their physical, mental and emotional needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people. However, people using the service told us they received care from the same staff, so they can enjoy continuity of care. A relative told us ‘“We have the same team of carers, so we always know who is coming and we haven’t had anybody who hasn’t been before”. In addition, if people using the service wished to attend a day-centre placement or participate in community-based activities, their care and support were co-ordinated to ensure continuity.

People using the service were not provided with information that was accessible. The provider did not supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. These needs were not met or reviewed to support people’s care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard requires adult social care providers to meet the information and communication needs of people with a disability, learning disability, or sensory loss. People did not always receive information in ways they could understand. The provider did not offer information in a range of formats, such as pictures or symbols, to meet the communication needs of people using the service.

People were encouraged to share their views, and the provider actively sought feedback on the quality of the service. People told us they knew how to raise concerns, complaints and provided feedback about their experiences of care and support.

The service made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. People using the service had access to out-of-hours support when they needed it. People were supported by staff to attend medical appointments. This helped to remove barriers for people who may have found it difficult to access care.

Staff and leaders did not always actively act on information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this to improve their care. The provider did not always recognise how, why, and where people were most likely to experience inequality, or work with other professionals to remove barriers and achieve the right outcomes. For example, for individuals with communication needs, the provider did not consult a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT), a professional responsible for assessing and supporting people with speech, language, and communication difficulties. However, people with limited mobility had access to specialist equipment and scheduled support, which enabled them to access the community and take part in social activities.

 

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future. People were not always supported to express their preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and decisions were not clearly documented. The service was not providing end-of-life care at the time of our assessment.