Annabelle Care 2020 Ltd

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 service. This key question has been rated 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.

The provider supported staff to deliver person-centred care and promoted a culture where people were actively involved in planning and reviewing their care. Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and desired outcomes. Records demonstrated that care delivery was consistent with the support outlined in care plans, helping to ensure people received care that was responsive to their wishes and circumstances.

People told us staff had a good understanding of their needs and adapted support when required. They described care workers as flexible and responsive to their preferences. One family member told us, “He is very independent and comes and goes as he likes. The staff respect this and try to adapt their visit times to accommodate his needs.”

The provider maintained effective oversight of care delivery and ensured staff had the information required to provide consistent support. Care records reflected the care people received and helped staff understand how best to meet individual 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.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to attend appointments, including visits to their GP and other healthcare services. Records demonstrated people had timely access to healthcare professionals and additional support when required.

Staff were responsive to people’s individual needs and delivered care in line with their preferences and agreed outcomes. People told us care was flexible and adapted to reflect changes in their circumstances. Care plans contained details of the professionals involved in people’s care, including names and contact information, enabling staff to liaise effectively with relevant services and seek advice promptly when needed.

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

The provider ensured people, their relatives, and relevant professionals received timely and accurate information about care and support arrangements. Information was shared in a clear and accessible way to help people understand the services available to them and make informed decisions.

Care plans detailed how best to communicate with individuals. The provider did not have anyone who required information in alternative formats but told us they had made information in large print for people previously.

People, and where relevant, those important to them were actively involved in decisions about their care and support and were encouraged to share their views, preferences and experiences. Staff worked collaboratively with people and, where appropriate, their relatives to ensure care reflected what was important to them. People told us they felt listened to and that their wishes were respected when planning and reviewing their care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns or make complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service had previously gathered feedback through paper questionnaires and had recently introduced electronic feedback forms to improve accessibility and oversight. Feedback received was reviewed and analysed by the provider. The responses were positive and had not identified any significant areas requiring improvement.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the responsiveness and approachability of the management team. One family member told us, “I do speak with the managers and they are always very obliging. They are very flexible when needed and do everything they can to help.” Another said, “It’s nice to have a team who actually listen to you and respect your wishes.”

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

People were supported to access a range of healthcare services, including GPs, community health professionals and urgent care services when needed. Staff recognised changes in people’s health and wellbeing and took appropriate action to ensure people received timely medical attention. One staff member told us, “We on occasions need to contact 999 for ambulances then reported straight to management to inform family members, I sometimes have to assist clients if they need to ring GPs or [non-emergency services] for advice then a report is sent straight to management for our records.” This demonstrated that staff understood their responsibilities and acted promptly to support people’s health needs.

Care plans contained relevant information about people’s health needs and identified professionals involved in their care, enabling staff to arrange support and seek advice when required. Staff worked closely with management, relatives and external professionals to help ensure people could access services and treatment without unnecessary delays.

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.

People’s likes, dislikes and interests were reflected in their care plans and considered when providing support. Staff supported people to engage in activities and social opportunities that were important to them, including social calls and community-based activities such as visits to the park or going out for ice cream. This helped people maintain their wellbeing, independence and connections with their local community.

People told us they felt valued, respected and involved in decisions about their care. They described positive relationships with staff, who knew them well and understood what mattered most to them.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes so that they had sufficient opportunity to make informed decisions about their future care and support, including at the end of their lives. Whilst some information relating to future wishes was recorded, arrangements for advance care planning were not consistently comprehensive.

Care plans contained some end-of-life information, including whether people had made decisions regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). However, records did not always include sufficient detail about people's wishes, preferences and choices for their end-of-life care. For example, where people required end-of-life support, care plans did not consistently specify who should be contacted if their health deteriorated or how the person wished to be supported during this period.

This meant staff did not always have access to clear and detailed guidance to ensure people's future wishes could be fully understood and followed. Although there was no evidence people had experienced poor outcomes as a result, the lack of comprehensive end-of-life planning increased the risk that people's preferences may not be consistently known or reflected in their care if their needs changed rapidly.