Aland Healthcare Agency

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

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 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 treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received support that reflected their routines, preferences and home life. One person said the care helped them feel relaxed and remain at home. Some daily notes focused mainly on tasks and contained limited information about people’s mood, choices and outcomes. We raised this with the registered manager, who agreed to remind staff to record this information more consistently and strengthen checks of daily notes. Other evidence, including people’s feedback and care records, showed staff provided person-centred care.

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 described having a regular worker and replacement cover for weekends, leave or sickness. Visits usually took place at agreed times and staff knew what support was required. This continuity helped people build trusting relationships and reduced the need to repeat their preferences. We found no evidence of missed care caused by poor planning or a lack of cover.

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

People received contact details and copies of care plans. The provider considered how each person communicated. For a person who did not use words, staff used body language and signs. Most people could use the information provided and knew how to contact the office. We found no evidence that inaccessible information prevented anyone from understanding or receiving care.

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 shared their views through telephone calls, visits, surveys and care reviews. The manager responded when people or relatives contacted the service. One relative said the manager “always gets back to me”. Another relative said the provider reviewed their family member’s care and updated the care plan. This showed that the provider listened to people and involved them in decisions about their care.

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

The provider considered barriers when arranging care and matched staff to communication, gender, cultural and religious preferences where possible. People reported reliable visits and replacement cover. The service accepted referrals through local authority arrangements and direct payments. We found no evidence that an avoidable barrier prevented a person from receiving agreed 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.

People with different care and support needs described positive experiences. They received regular care from staff who understood their individual needs. One person with limited English said their careworker was respectful, arrived at the agreed time and had replacement cover when unavailable.

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 maintained contact and reviewed care when arrangements or needs changed. At the time of the assessment, no one using the service needed end of life care. Care plans contained review arrangements and staff were expected to report changes. We found no evidence that a known future need had been overlooked.