Allfor Care Croydon

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 inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment, we found the service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person-centred care, receiving and acting on complaints and dignity and respect. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

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.

At our last assessment, we found people’s individual care needs were not always met. At this assessment we found people’s needs were supported by regular and familiar staff in line with their individual person-centred care plans.

People’s person-centred plans contained important information they wanted to share about themselves. For example, people’s life histories contained information such as childhood, education, occupation, hobbies and travel. Staff had guidance about the emotional support people wanted in a section titled, ‘Things that sooth, relax, calm and reassure me.’ Similarly, sections called, ‘Things a I like to talk about’, ‘Things that worry or upset me’ and ‘My favourite things’ provided staff with information that enabled meaningful conversations. A person told us, “They come in, and sit and chat with me...these carers are good friendly people.”

Care records noted people’s preferred names, stated who people lived with and whether family members met any of their identified needs. This enabled managers to ensure care plans were in place to meet all identified needs.

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.

At our last assessment, we found the absence of regular carers negatively impacted the continuity of care people received. At this assessment, we found people received their care and support from regular staff they knew well. A person told us, “I’ve built a really good rapport with the carers from this agency.”

Staff supported people to access health and social care provision. For example, staff supported people to engage with health care professionals and supported a person to attend a day service.

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

At our last assessment, we found the provider did not always provide information in accessible formats. At this assessment, we found information was produced for people in easy read formats which included large print and simple words supported by pictures. The provider offered important documents to people in a range of languages, braille and audible. For example, a person had a service users guide in an audible format. This meant the provider supplied information in formats people could understand.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

At our last assessment, we found people living with dementia did not have dementia care plans in place and some people felt their concerns were not always addressed. At this assessment, we found people living with dementia had person-centred care plans in place which reflected people’s wishes. Similalrly, people with a learning disability had person-centred care plans in easy read formats.

Most people told us they were comfortable making a complaint and felt it would be addressed by the provider. A person told us, “I feel comfortable to speak with [office-based staff] and make a complaint.” Another person told us, “I have no complaints but would raise any issues if I had any.” Leaders audited complaints as well as feedback surveys and complaints.

The provider’s quality assurance team carried out regular customer satisfaction phone calls and reported their findings each week to the leadership. Leaders reviewed all feedback and survey findings alongside complaints. This was to ensure all concerns were identified and responded to.

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

The provider promoted equity in access. People were supported with needs assessments and care plans which detailed their preferences for care and support. People and their relatives participated in care plan reviews to ensure they continued to meet people’s needs and preferences. Staff supported people’s cultural needs, including observing faith practices.

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.

At our last assessment, we found the provider’s initial assessments and care plans did not comprehensively reflect people's needs relating to their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. At this assessment, we found people’s care records detailed their gender, ethnicity, nationality, language, religion, disabilities and marital status along with people’s preferences for care and support.

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 our last assessment, we found the provider did not ensure staff were adequately trained for end of life care. At this assessment, we found whilst none of the people being supported were identified to be on the end-of-life pathway, staff had received training.

The provider had plans in place to continue supporting people should they require palliative care. These plans included working in partnership with people, their relatives, the GP, pharmacy, community nurses and a local hospice. Senior office staff were trained to collaboratively produce end-of-life care plans to ensure people were supported to pass away with dignity and with their pain managed.