Pathways of Hope

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
• 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 Assessment Service Group since its registration. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were receiving a person-centred service from staff who knew them well. People's care plans reflected their physical, emotional and mental health needs and these had been effectively assessed. People's care plans contained detail to provide clear and descriptive guidance to staff about how to support people to meet their needs. For example, there was personalised and detailed guidance for one person to recognise and support them with mental health needs. This included positive reinforcement guidance for staff to support them effectively. We saw evidence and audits that these were reviewed and changes in people’s needs were updated.

People and staff told us that there was a focus on person centred care. One staff member said, “Care plans are well detailed. The management ensures we get fully informed about each and every client.” Another staff member said, “Since every client is unique, my approach is adapted accordingly.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. Continuity of people’s care resulted from staff working consistently and meeting their assessed needs. Effective partnership working with external agencies meant that care was delivered effectively, and people’s health care needs were responded to.

Care was coordinated and delivered to those most at risk and considered the preferences and protected characteristics of people. For example, people had opportunities to practice their faith as they wished, and staff made adjustments to the support and respected these while providing support. One staff member said, “I regularly support the same clients, which allows me to develop a deep understanding of their routines, preferences, and individual needs.”

People’s communication needs were met to enable them to engage in their care, treatment and support to maximise their experience and outcomes.

People’s communication needs were assessed in detail and included what support they might need to convey feelings and choices. Communication assessments and care plans captured sensory needs, communication preferences, use of alternate languages such as Makaton and British Sign Language (BSL) and what aids, if any, were needed to support people to get the information they needed. One person’s care plan indicated that if formal correspondence regarding their health and care needs was too long, then staff would support them to understand it. No one receiving support required information to be presented to them in an adapted format, although the provider was able to accommodate different needs should this be required.

Systems supported people to be involved in their care and treatment. People knew how to give feedback about their care and how to raise concerns if they needed to. People told us that the service was responsive when any issues or requests were made. One person said, “If I have a complaint, they do sort it quickly. They are on it straight away, sometimes they need to look into it.”

The provider ensured that systems were in place to seek people’s views and involve them in their support. People we spoke to supported this. The provider had a complaints policy and people had details of how to make a complaint in their home folders. There were no formal complaints to review although people said the management was responsive in dealing with any issues raised.

Systems supported people to access the care, support and services they needed. People received care that was timely and in line with best practice and quality standards. Consistent provision of staff training supported this. The provider sought, through the assessment process to ensure that people received their care when they needed it and wanted it.

People’s communication needs were assessed, and discussion took place during the initial assessment phase which considered what adjustments or resources people might need to access information about their care and support.

People were supported in a person-centred way to ensure equitable experiences and outcomes.

People’s care planning was consistent, and the provider sought to provide a person-centred service that acknowledged people’s differences. The registered manager and provider were alert to potential inequality issues. Management recognised staff from different backgrounds and this approach applied to acknowledging people’s diversity and individuality. People’s care pans and key worker sessions were delivered consistently to ensure that the outcomes people wished to achieve were applied equally.

Staff understood their role in ensuring people's equality and diversity needs were met. Training records showed that there was compliance in completing Equality and Diversity training. The services Equality and Diversity policy was detailed and highlighted a commitment to equality and human rights legislation. People could access care and support when they need to and in a way that worked for them, that promoted equality and protects their rights.

People were supported to plan for their future needs. People’s end of life wishes were sought as part of the assessment process. Information regarding advanced planning, such as the decision to have a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), was obtained and included in care plan guidance for staff.

The provider stated that many people do not wish to discuss end of life preferences and support and this was respected. The registered manager said, “We ask them for end of life and if they are happy with questions around end of life. Some are not happy to have that conversation. When we review, we will ask them again, about advanced care planning and whether they wish for anything to be put in place.”