Dudley MBC Home Care Services

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 remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were effectively at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Information within people’s care records was not always person-centred. For example, where people required support to manage identified needs, their care plans and risk assessments did not always include information about those needs. While care records were reviewed with people and relatives, care plans and risk assessments were not effectively reviewed to ensure they always accurately detailed people’s needs.

Staff demonstrated an awareness of the practical individualised support they provided to people, which was supported by people and relatives’ feedback. The provider sought the views of people and relatives on occasions regarding the care people received through satisfaction telephone calls and visits.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Although leaders demonstrated the systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed, these processes were not always effective in ensuring people’s care records provided adequate information. This meant staff did not always have guidance relating to people’s needs to ensure they achieved positive outcomes.

Safety event records which detailed incidents of risk and harm had not always been adequately analysed by leaders to support understanding and learning. This meant there was a risk staff were not always aware of known issues.

Staff told us they were aware of people’s health needs and how they supported people to meet these needs in consultation with external healthcare professionals. People and their relatives told us staff worked closely with families and external health professionals when this was required.

Safety events were appropriately reported to CQC and the local authority, which promoted joined-up working.

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

Care plans and risk assessments detailed how people chose to communicate where they had communication needs. Staff used a range of communication methods to aid people’s understanding, such as picture boards and gestures, and they demonstrated an awareness of people’s communication needs.

People and relatives told us how staff adapted their communication approach depending on the needs of people they supported, with 1 relative telling us, “They’ve learned how to communicate with my [relative] quickly; I’ve been impressed.”

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.

A complaints procedure was in place, and staff, people and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and they were confident these would be dealt with. One person told us, “I always feel safe. I would probably phone the office if I had any problems.”

People told us they were involved in their care planning processes, and people were provided with regular opportunities in which they could raise matters with the provider, such as via people’s satisfaction surveys.

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

While people’s care records did not always provide adequate information, the continuity of care people received in addition to staff possessing a clear awareness of people’s needs meant people could access the care they required when they needed it.

People and relatives told us the service was accessible and responsive. One relative told us, “They are so responsive to all of my [relative’s] needs.”

Staff worked flexibly around people’s routines and needs to ensure people received care at times that suited them.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

An equality and diversity policy was in place, and staff had received equality and diversity training, which meant the service was aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

Staff tailored support to people in ways to ensure they could achieve comparable experiences, regardless of disability, health condition, or background. For example, staff provided communication support so people could access services within their wider community.

People achieved outcomes comparable to others, including maintained independence, improved comfort and consistent access to social opportunities. People and relatives told usstaff treated people fairly and responded consistently to individual needs, demonstrating equity in both experiences and outcomes.

People were not always 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.

People’s care plans and risk assessments did not include information on the longer-term wishes and preferences which could be important to them, even though the provider told us they were currently supporting people with palliative / end-of-life care. Staff had not received palliative / end-of-life training. This meant we were not assured the provider had considered this aspect of people’s care as something that required care planning.