AMG Nursing and Care Services - Crewe

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 inspection this key question was rated good. At this inspection this has remained the same. 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. For example, for people who could not communicate verbally, there was detailed information around people’s body language and use of facial expressions. One staff member told us about a time they were supporting someone to communicate using BSL (British Sign Language). We saw how people’s preferences around gender was clearly recorded in their care plans as well as how they liked to spend their time, and programmes they liked to watch.

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. Relatives told us the organisation was often flexible and would tailor people’s call times, often at short notice, to accommodate for their medical appointments or other personal events.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw a range of policies and procedures available to people in different formats to help support their understanding.

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 was a complaints procedure in place. People were provided with detailed feedback following their complaint. People and relatives told us they had not needed to make a complaint to the registered manager however they understood the complaints process.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to GPs and district nurse teams when they needed them. People’s relatives told us staff would not hesitate to reach out to any other medical professional if needed.

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 advocated for people’s needs, such as contacting advocates, landlords and occupational therapists on their behalf, to ensure people experienced the same level of service as everyone else.

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. Where appropriate, there were Do Not Attempt Resuscitation forms in place, which had been discussed with people and their families. People were supported in their own homes and had different options and pathways available to enable them to remain in their own home if their health declined further.