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

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.

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.

Feedback from people was positive about staff approach to meeting their needs and flexibility. One person said, “Staff listen to me and support me the way I want to be supported, they are open for me to change the routine, time restriction.” Another person said, “Yes they ask me if I’m happy with the support as they do it and will change if needed for example, I have a set meal/breakfast plan they help me with but if I want something different, they are happy to be flexible and prepare what I ask for.”

People who used the service and those close to them were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. People and relatives told us they were encouraged to be involved and were consulted about how they wanted the care to be delivered.

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.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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, “Yes, very confident with this and I give feedback if I need to, but I am mostly very happy with the service I receive.”

The provider ensured that systems were in place to seek people’s views and involve them in their support. The registered manager said, “When we go for spot checks, we asked clients about feedback about how the service is going. Ask about any concerns. When we do the review, we also ask for feedback from them. We do random welfare checks. Surveys sent out which are made anonymously.” People we spoke to confirmed this. One person said, “The last six months I have had a couple of surveys over the phone asking how’s my care and if I needed anything else. Every two to three months, I get a phone call, and they check on if I am happy with the carers.”

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. One person said, “Yes I’m confident with calling the office and letting them know what I think if something isn’t right, and they have got better at listening in the last six months.” Another person said, “If there was a problem, they would sort it for me and they would discuss it with me. there is open communication.”

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.

When people required equipment in their homes to move or transfer, staff ensured that they used this safely and effectively so that people could move around as they wished. Environmental assessments meant that premises were risk assessed so that obstacles and risks were removed to ensure continuity of care.

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.

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. For example, the provider ensured that one person’s religious practices were protected, and had continuity, by making adjustments to their care provision and liaising with their GP.

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.”