Cathrolls' UK Limited

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 told us their care and support was person centred, they had consistent staff that knew them well. Staff described how they supported people at their own pace. A staff member said, “When providing personal care for [person], we make sure his clothes are ready, he needs a lot of time and we don’t rush."

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 service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care. Information was shared with staff regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. Staff told us how they supported people and their relatives. A staff member said, “When an NHS letter comes for [person] I help him open it, pin it on the fridge and let his son know, his son is very involved and provides support to go to the appointment.” Relatives told us they felt staff communicated well them well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People were able to access information. Although not required at the time of the inspection, the service had pictorial communication aids if needed and also access to translation services should they need it. Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs for example, people who may have hearing or vision impairments.

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. The provider carried out monthly telephone monitoring calls and regular visits to people using the service. Relatives told us that the service was responsive to their loved ones needs. Staff described how they listened and respected people.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People lived independently in their own homes in the community and managed their own daily activities and community engagement. We had difficulty getting in contact with the service and the management team before the assessment and during the assessment because the phone lines were not accepting calls. Despite this, people and their relatives told us they were always able to make contact with the service when they needed to. The management team told us that sometimes staff supported people with additional tasks to meet their needs such as essential food shopping or liaising with the pharmacy.

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 had opportunities to feedback to the management team about their service. The nominated individual for the provider visited people regularly which enabled people to discuss their needs and expectations. A person told us, “[Nominated individual] comes every 6 months, [Nominated individual] keeps in touch to see if there are any concerns and she visits. I can always get hold of [Nominated individual].” It was clear from the care records that people had time to chat with staff as part of their care visits. This showed that visits were not task focused. People also had support from their relatives and loved ones.

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. Some people had a DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) form in place. This is an advanced decision not to attempt CPR. It is not about other treatments or care. Staff told us they had received training to support them to provide end of life care when needed. At the time of the assessment, no one was at the end of their life.