Archived: Engage Care Services - Main Office Also known as Engage 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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

Engage Care Services now only supported 1 person. Therefore, it was not possible to assess all areas as there was only 1 care plan to review and 1 staff team to speak with. We were unable to compare how the provider may ensure people received person-centred care due to only 1 person being supported.

The care plan was person centred. However, detailed information for staff to follow for specific support routines was not recorded. No formal complaints had been made. The person said issues they raised had been addressed.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The person said staff knew their needs.

Staff knew the person’s needs. The care plan was personalised and included details of their medical symptoms staff needed to be aware.

However, detailed information for staff to follow for specific support routines was not recorded.

The service only supported 1 person. Therefore, we could not judge if improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to providing person centred care and that care plans no longer used generic statements.

The person had no specific feedback in this area.

We could not collect evidence to score this evidence category as the service only supported 1 person.

We were told the registered manager was initially not cooperating with a new provider to ensure a smooth transition of care.

The person was supported to maintain their health and attend relevant medical appointments.

However, the registered manager did not initially cooperate with a new provider meaning the person’s continuity of care was at risk.

The person had no communication needs.

Staff said they reminded the person about upcoming appointments so they could be prepared for them.

We could not collect evidence to score this evidence category as the service only supported 1 person.

The person knew how to raise any concerns. They felt they were listened to, and things had changed when they had raised issues with the clinical lead.

Staff said they spent time talking with the person and this supported their emotional wellbeing.

A complaints log had been set up for previous contracts. There was no log for the person being supported as they had not made any formal complaints.

The clinical lead visited each month to discuss the support provided and gather feedback.

However, the service only supported 1 person, and we could not evidence if improvements had been made for gathering feedback if there were more people being supported.

The person said the staff supported them to access the community, follow their faith and attend medical appointments.

Staff said they supported the person to access the community, follow their faith and attend medical appointments.

Partners had no specific feedback in this area.

We could not collect evidence to score this evidence category as the service only supported 1 person.

The person had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff had no specific feedback in this area.

We could not collect evidence to score this evidence category as the service only supported 1 person.

The person had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff had no specific feedback in this area.

The care plan detailed relevant legal and heath documents in place.