GAIN Care Limited - Leeds

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 was personalised and designed to meet their specific needs and preferences. For example, people’s health conditions were detailed in their care plans to ensure staff had the necessary knowledge. Some people required equipment to meet their needs such as mobility needs. Their care plans described how staff needed to use their equipment. Daily notes reviewed showed people’s care plans were followed by staff.

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.

The management team and staff were knowledgeable about people’s health needs and knew which services were available if people required a referral to other healthcare professionals, if their care needs required it.

Feedback from people and relatives indicated the provider was working well with other healthcare professionals. Their comments included, “They liaise well with other health professionals like GP and district nurse.”

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

People’s care plan included their communication needs and preferred ways to communicate. For example, a person had communication aids that were available to staff if person wished to use them.

People and relatives told us information was made available, and they felt it was easy to communicate with the provider. Their comments included, “They really listen to me and are easy to communicate with.”

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.

There were policies and procedures in place for people and relatives to provide feedback. This included if they wished to make a formal written complaint and a telephone complaint.

People and their relatives felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Relatives told us, “I am aware of their complaints procedure, but there have never been any issues” and “They explained the complaints procedure and how to contact them. They are readily available whenever we need to contact them, either by email or phone.”

Records showed few complaints had been received but these had been responded in a timely manner and any lessons learnt shared with the complainant and staff team.

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

People's care records indicated they had access to care and support they needed and referrals were made for treatment when they needed it.

Relatives commented on care being delivered in a flexible way. Comments included, “The care company is very flexible and will organise extra cover for [relative] at short notice if I need extra help” and “They are very flexible as well and will provide extra care if we need it.”

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.

In our review of records, feedback from people, relatives, staff and the management team we found people using the service were not being discriminated against and were accessing to the care they required.

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.

There were plans in place to support people who required palliative care.

People’s care records contained information about their DNACPR status (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) which is an advanced decision not to attempt CPR; it is not about other treatments or care.

Staff were aware of people’s wishes and had completed training in end-of-life care. A staff member told us, “[People on end-of-life care] are in a situation where they might be in a lot of pain. I need to be very careful, listen to them more, check if they are in pain, offer medication for pain relief, and after that we might be able to provide care. [We] Make sure they are as comfortable as they can be.” A relative commented, “The whole process of discussing end of life and what will happen, and the care provision was dealt with in a very compassionate and kind manner.”