Errand Plus and Personal Services

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

There was improvement around the responsiveness of the service, however the care was not always person-centred, and some processes were not robust and checked to ensure they captured all relevant information.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People felt their care needs were being met and felt they were in control of their care.

Staff explained to us how the care they deliver is person-centred, delivering care that is unique to that individual and in accordance with how they wish to be cared for.

The majority of people felt they were supported with phone calls to relevant healthcare professionals. However, we noted evidence of a call being stopped with no explanation to the individual or the council over a delayed review.

Staff assured us on the integration of information been shared appropriately to support individuals within the service. Staff supported with assessments when a transition of care was required for short term or long term residential care. The service supported the individual throughout the process but also making sure their care needs were captured. The service told us people’s needs were prioritised and they were being met and they told us about an occasion when the service referred an individual to another service provider that were able to meet their needs more appropriately due to their first language not being English.

People we spoke with that worked alongside the service said that they are responsive to feedback and most concerns that had been raised with them, had been dealt with effectively.

The service uses a communication method for healthcare professionals that holds important details on an individual that is available in an emergency. We found this method lacked detail and a lot of the information was missing which showed us it was ineffective and wasn’t an embedded process.

Most of the people we spoke with stated they knew the procedure for raising a concern or a complaint. Families were given access to care plans to review them, and people were communicated in a way that suited them.

The service informed us that consent forms are completed on information sharing and that they would ensure all information is clear and understood. However, we were not given any consent forms around the discussion of families having access to care records.

The service had an information pack that they gave every individual, however we were not overly assured everyone received that information pack. From reviewing complaints, it was highlighted that an individual was not provided with the complaint’s procedure.

People we spoke to were all aware of how and who to complain to but weren’t aware of the procedure to follow if they were unsatisfied with the outcome of their complaint. People we spoke to had more contact with team leaders rather than the Registered Manager or Nominated Individual. However, they all expressed they were involved in reviewing their care plans and this was done frequently.

The service informed us that they request feedback forms to be completed from people using the service and we felt these were not robust. Staff expressed that they have the opportunity to raise concerns and can do this on their monthly spot checks, they feel their voice and opinions are listened to.

We were not assured that the service carried our regular reviews as there was no evidence of them being carried out. We could not identify from looking at the care records that there was any involvement from people using the service or their families. It was noted this happened only through conversations with people that confirmed they reviewed them regularly. The care records did not reflect this to be the case.

People told us they were supported by the staff to make sure that their care needs were being met with referrals going through to other healthcare professionals involved in supporting the individual or needing their specialist input. The service were also able to supply staff for additional visits on a short time frame. However some people expressed they were unable to communicate effectively due to staff still wearing face masks.

The staff expressed how they were confident in putting referrals through to GPs, district nurses or other healthcare professionals if required. Staff told us they informed families of concerns and escalated matters to their office to follow up.

We requested feedback from partners, who were front line staff, about the working relationship with the service and we received no feedback or concerns. We spoke to other healthcare professionals who said people within the service had expressed to them about the barrier of communication with staff wearing face masks and although they tried alternative methods of communication through the use of a white board. This was ineffective when an individual was being supported with their mobility.

We reviewed the services multi disciplinary records, and they evidenced the relevant healthcare professionals involved in the individuals care and showed the staff had put referrals through where appropriate. However they have failed to identify communication barriers that people may need support with.

People told us that the staff wore face masks despite there not being any obvious risks leading to this decision. People told us this was a significant barrier to their ability to communicate clearly and effectively with the care workers and people found it hard to understand what was being said to them.

Staff told us how they supported people who were more at risk of experiencing inequality due to an impairment by using a range of methods that were unique to that individual and how that individual wanted to communicate. However, none of the staff we spoke with considered or acknowledged potential barriers to communication with people when wearing a face mask.

The service failed to identify the people that were unable to communicate effectively due to the barrier of wearing a face mask and how they would be supported. The service had an equality, diversity and inclusion policy but it did not consider communication within the policy.

Some people who use the service told us that the carers support their goals of reducing their care frequency to regain more of the independence by regularly reviewing their circumstances and support they require. One individual told us that the carers encourage them to exercise as they have a goal to lose weight.

Staff we spoke with assured us that they were familiar with people's DNACPR records or RESPECT forms and the importance of them and ensuring they stayed with the individual at all times.

Although staff expressed how they supported people with end of life. A lot of the care plans we reviewed had no evidence of end-of-life discussions made where they would have been appropriate.