Grossdale Care Agency Also known as Fountain of Hope Care Agency

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area.

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 service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. People received care and support from staff and these were based on care plans that were produced following an assessment of their needs. People told us the service worked in partnership with them, to decide how to respond to changes in people’s needs. However, people’s care plans were not always thorough, accurate or person-centred as they contained errors. Although the errors did not directly impact upon people’s care, there was risk of staff and people being provided incorrect information about people’s needs. For example, one person’s care and support plan referred to another person’s relative rather than the person in relation to their meal preferences. The registered manager told us they would address these errors, review the care plans and make the necessary corrections.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. People and relatives said staff worked well with the person they supported. They told us they received care and support from staff they were familiar with which helped by having consistency and continuity in their service. A person said, “I have a good relationship with the carer. They are reliable, always come on time and respect my choices.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. People and relatives said staff worked well with the person they supported. They told us they received care and support from staff they were familiar with which helped by having consistency and continuity in their service. A person said, “I have a good relationship with the carer. They are reliable, always come on time and respect my choices.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were assessed and discussed during their initial assessment. This ensured staff knew how to communicate with people. People told us they did not have any communication issues and could freely engage in conversation with staff. The director told us information was available in formats that were suitable for people to read, for example easy read or large print text. A person was positive about the service and the level of communication. They said, “I can chat with the staff and enjoy their company. It is all fine. The office contact me as well to check I am OK with everything. So there is good communication."

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. A complaints was procedure was available for people and relatives to use if they were not happy with the service or had concerns. People and relatives told us they could speak with the registered manager if they had any complaints. They felt confident they would be listened to and action would be taken to resolve any issues. There had not been any complaints made about the service since our previous inspection.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider followed processes to make sure people continued to have fair and equal access to services such as registration with a GP surgery. Daily notes were completed which gave an overview of the care people had received and captured any changes in people's health and wellbeing. This ensured all staff members were aware of any changes to people’s health conditions and direct them to the appropriate health care professionals such as doctors and dentists.

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. The management team told us people were assessed before they used the service to ensure their needs and preferences were identified and could be met. Assessments of people’s diverse needs were discussed prior to using the service. The management team had an awareness of the groups of people who were at risk of inequalities and barriers to their care. The director said, “We treat everybody equally regardless of their differences and characteristics such as race or sexual orientation. We would challenge discrimination and make sure people get equal opportunities for their care. We respect people’s differences.”

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. End of life care was not being provided at the time of the inspection. The registered manager was aware of the importance of this if people’s needs changed. An end of life care policy was in place. People’s families would be involved in any decisions about people’s future care and support.