South West Care Group LTD T/A Goodoaks Homecare East Dorset

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 71 (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 received personalised care that was responsive to their needs, wishes and preferences. Care plans were on electronic format, staff had access to them on their smartphones. This meant any changes in people’s needs were shared immediately and staff were kept up to date with new information about people they cared for. Care plans contained person-centred details, including their goals, skills, abilities and how they preferred to manage their health. However, some people’s care plans lacked information on how to support their emotional and psychological wellbeing. The provider took immediate action to address this.
Staff had worked closely with people, their relatives and others important to them to ensure all their wishes and feelings were recorded. Staff had spent time with people and their relatives to gain real insight, and demonstrated they knew people, their routines, wishes and preferences very well. Staff told us, “ Care plans are clear and person-centred. Updates are recorded when people’s needs change” and “Office staff and visiting care staff are very good at working with clients to ensure their care plans reflect all their care requirements and ensure that the care provided is tailored to them”.
 

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.

People and professionals told us that staff understood peoples care needs. One relative told us, “Several members of staff have asked about [family member’s] health conditions, e.g. what causes them, and have obviously looked them up to find out more about them after they've left”. This meant staff had all the information they needed to ensure they met people’s assessed needs.

People told us the service worked well with other professionals when needed. This included local GP surgeries, occupational therapists, social workers and pharmacies. Leaders were knowledgeable about people’s diverse health and social care needs. Staff made sure the multi-disciplinary team were involved when required. They gave examples of this and explained how other professionals were involved to ensure people’s wellbeing. We reviewed records of people who had regular input from other services; for example, there was input from the community mental health team, local GP surgery and frailty team. Staff worked hard to co-ordinate people’s appointments, making sure other professionals were aware of the person’s treatment and ongoing needs. Staff followed any guidance given, and provided information and feedback to professionals when needed, such as the effect of medication changes.
 

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

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard policy. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.
The provider ensured people’s care plans and records captured how people were supported to engage in meaningful communication and decision-making. This enabled people to be active participants in their care if this was their wish. Peoples’ care plans clearly identified communication needs and what staff should do to support communication. This included ensuring people had access to any aids they required, such as prescription glasses and hearing aids.
The provider offered information leaflets for people and carers for ‘falls prevention and mobility’, ‘nutrition and hydration’, ‘care funding’ together with free end of life training.
 

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.

There were effective systems to manage concerns and complaints. A complaint policy was in place that detailed the process of managing complaints. Staff were also able to tell us the process to manage complaints and concerns, which were escalated to management for review.
People and relatives were able to share feedback about their care through regular reviews and surveys. One person told us, “Any concerns are taken first to the Care Coordinator. They have been very straightforward and supportive when I have spoken to them”. Another person told us, “Any issues are dealt with promptly”.
We saw systems were in place to obtain feedback from people and involve them in decisions such as regular reviews with people on their care. Quality monitoring systems were in place to obtain feedback from relatives and analyse them.
 

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

People's care records demonstrated that when they required the support and intervention of external health care professionals, this was provided. People were supported to attend health appointments and referrals to external health professionals were made in a timely manner for further assessment and / or guidance. This demonstrated people had access to the care they needed.
People were encouraged and supported to access regular health care reviews with a strong focus on prevention from further health deterioration. Comprehensive assessments covering the accessibility of people’s homes and whether any adaptations, equipment or referrals to occupational therapists were needed had been completed. External professionals confirmed this.
People and relatives told us they had access to health care when needed and did not experience inequalities. They said their rights were promoted and they could share their views about their service through calling the office, regular care reviews and feedback forms.
 

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 provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. For example, people with health-related mobility issues were provided with appropriate mobility aids to improve their experience and support independence.
Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. The provider had an equality and diversity policy which was in line with legislation and up to date.
 

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.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about advanced plans for end of life care. People were not always actively supported to make advanced decisions about their preferences for end of life care. Comments included, “These matters have not really been discussed with my [family member] at this time” and “It hasn't been appropriate to discuss end of life care as such”.
The provider identified this was not routinely asked during reviews and took immediate action to address this.
Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example whether they wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they wished to remain at home. People’s care plans informed staff whether they had a DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation). DNACPR documents were stored in people’s homes. People’s lasting powers of attorney were documented in care plans, if people became unable to make decisions themselves. These decisions were recorded in respect documents, advanced care documents, and recorded in people’s care plans.
Staff had received training on end-of-life care. The service was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care at the time of inspection.