Pleasant Valley Care Shropshire Branch

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 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 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’s comprehensive care plans were holistic, and person centred and people had been fully involved in the development of their care plans. People’s needs and preferences were clear in respect to each aspect of their care and provided staff with detailed guidance regarding how to respond to people’s needs in the way they wanted. The registered manager encouraged staff to deliver people’s care in a person-centred way. The registered manager told us, “A care plan is a living document, and it is what people need.”

Where people did not have full care documentation in place, the provider had completed initial care plans and risk assessments which were also person centred and specific to each person’s individual needs although they lacked the detail of the comprehensive care plans. The registered manager told us they intended to complete each person’s care plans and risk assessments to the same standard as the comprehensive documentation, but time constraints and external pressures had not yet allowed this.

Relatives told us the registered manager took a personal approach to ensure people received care which met their individual needs. One relative told us, “The carer has time and is always there for them. It's nice as the provider will contact me to see if there's anything (Person’s name) needs.”

Whilst documentation had not always been fully completed to the standard the registered manager wanted, the registered manager showed a clear motivation to deliver person centred care, and this was reflected in feedback provided by people and relatives. One relative told us, “The social and motherly thing is what they do best, it's important, (my relative) feels like they're supporting them in more ways than just providing care.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care provision, integration and continuity were not always effectively managed to ensure people received consistent, coordinated care. Records showed variability in the quality and completeness of care plans and other care documentation which meant the provider couldn’t be assured care would be delivered consistently.

People told us they appreciated the continuity of care provided by consistent carers. However, where their usual staff were not available, contingency arrangements for staffing did not always promote continuity, with people sometimes supported by unfamiliar staff or receiving support from their relatives. As a result, people were at risk of experiencing fragmented care and the provider could not be assured care provision was consistently safe, coordinated, and responsive.

People and relatives told us they consistently had sufficient time for their care calls to meet their needs but calls were not always on time, although carers did contact them if they were going to be late.

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

People were provided with clear information about their care packages from the offset of their care. The registered manager was clear about what the service could deliver to ensure the expectations of people and their relatives was managed. People received a service user guide at the outset of their care package which provided them with information they needed to promote the smooth running of the care package such as complaints procedures, costs and contact details.

People and relatives were positive about communication with the registered manager and told us changes to people’s care was communicated promptly and effectively.

Electronic care planning systems were used to share information efficiently between staff and the office. Staff understood the importance of confidentiality when sharing information.

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.

People and relatives told us they were central to any decisions made in respect to people’s care. Where changes were needed to people’s care, the provider was responsive and proactive in making changes to meet people’s needs.

Whilst the provider did not have systems in place for formal feedback, people and relatives told us the provider was open and available if they wished to share information or raise concerns.

Complaints were not recorded but people told us they were confident any concerns would be addressed.

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

The provider was flexible to ensure people received care when they needed it. One person told us the registered manager had told them to contact them if they needed any additional support or needed any emergency calls and they would do their best to accommodate it.

The provider gave examples of where they had adapted people’s care calls at times when they had experienced family bereavement and where people wanted additional time to enable staff to prepare them a special meal.

The registered manager was knowledgeable about how to ensure people had equity in access. Where they identified cultural barriers in access to care, they were flexible with how they allocated staff to ensure people’s cultural needs were met in the way they wanted.

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.

Care plans reflected people’s unique needs, including cultural, religious, linguistic, and lifestyle preferences. Staff valued people’s difference and adapted their care practices to ensure people felt understood and their care needs were met in a way they preferred.

Care packages were designed to meet people’s individual circumstances. The provider told us where people had specific religious needs, visits had been scheduled to align with people’s religious practices.

Staff understood people’s rights and how to uphold them during care delivery. People and relatives told us people were respected and care was delivered in a way that met their individual needs.

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.

People had ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms in place where needed and these were kept in the person’s home, so they were accessible to staff. The ReSPECT process creates a summary of personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care in a future emergency in which they are not able to make decisions or to express wishes.

The registered manager told us they always raised the topic of end-of-life planning in people’s assessments, but most choose not to discuss this. Care plans showed where end of life had been discussed with those who wished.