Beersheba Social Care Services 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’s individual needs were met through detailed care plans, which covered a range of areas including personal care, nutrition, skin care, mobility and transfers, social activities and physical health needs. Care plans also included information about people’s background, communication needs, likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests. Clear guidance was provided on how to support people with specific tasks and activities in line with their individual preferences and requirements.

People spoke positively about the personalised care they received. One person told us, “The carers are careful and always put me and how I like things done in mind. They listen and follow my preferences. They know how to support me.”

Staff completed daily care records which detailed the support people received. A relative confirmed this and told us, “My relative is very well cared for. [The registered manager] and the staff are thorough. They understand my relative’s needs.” Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated as required to reflect changes in people’s needs, helping to ensure care remained safe, responsive and person centred.

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.

Staff worked creatively to support people to achieve their personal goals and maintain independence. For example, one person was supported to attend a local leisure centre to help improve and maintain their mobility. The service also worked in partnership with another agency to support a person to maintain and continue their employment.

Staff supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed for relaxation and stimulation. This included ensuring people could watch television programmes they liked and supporting people to meet their religious and spiritual needs by enabling them to take part in relevant activities or practices.

The provider-maintained continuity within the care team wherever possible, which helped people to build trusting and meaningful relationships with staff. Support provided took account of people’s physical, emotional, social and family needs, and extending support to individuals and their families to promote wellbeing and continuity of care.

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

Care plans included detailed information about people’s communication needs and how staff should support them effectively. These also recorded people’s preferred methods of communication, such as whether they wished to be contacted by email or telephone.

Staff adjusted their communication approaches to meet people’s needs, including how information was explained to support understanding. They used basic words and gestures to promote effective communication where necessary. Care records identified any barriers to effective communication and outlined actions staff should take to minimise these. This helped ensure people were involved in their care and able to make informed decisions.

At the time of our inspection, there was no one using the service who required information in alternative languages or formats. However, the provider told us they were able and willing to work with other agencies, including translation services, to support people should such needs arise.

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 actively sought feedback from people and their relatives through surveys and regular review meetings. They also operated systems that enabled people to share their views about the service at any time. Open communication was promoted, which helped people and their families feel confident raising concerns. We saw that concerns were responded to promptly and resolved wherever possible.

The service had a complaints procedure in place, and people and their relatives were provided with a copy when they first started using the service. People told us they understood how to raise concerns and felt comfortable doing so. One person said they would speak directly to the registered manager if they had any concerns and trusted them to take action. They commented, “[The registered manager] is very good. If I have any problems, she will sort it out quickly.”

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

Care delivery was flexible, with visit times adjusted to meet people’s preferences and changing needs. Staff supported people in a responsive and flexible way and attended to requests for urgent or emergency support to help ensure people’s safety and wellbeing. People and their relatives confirmed they were able to reach out to the service and contact staff when they needed additional support.

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.

The registered manager demonstrated a good understanding of people’s diverse needs and ensured care was delivered in a person‑centred way, helping to improve people’s experiences and outcomes. An open and transparent system of communication was promoted, which helped ensure people felt listened to and supported, and that feedback was used to inform improvements to the service.

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.

At the time of our inspection, the service was not supporting anyone with end‑of‑life care. The registered manager told us that discussions about people’s wishes and preferences in this area were included as part of care reviews, where appropriate, and involved people and their relatives. This approach ensured people were supported to make informed choices if and when they wished to discuss future care planning.

The registered manager explained that people’s wishes would be respected and documented in care plans, and appropriate support put in place to meet their needs. They demonstrated an understanding of when and how to involve other health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated and appropriate support should end‑of‑life care be required.