Care Quality Services Coventry

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

Staff were able to deliver person centred care because any changes in people's needs were shared with them. This meant care could be reflective of people's needs as they presented that day. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people had information in a way they understood and involving people in making decisions and choices about how their care was delivered and needs met. People were confident they would be referred to other healthcare professionals if a need was identified. The provider was developing processes to ensure good communication with other services to support joined up care. Systems were being implemented to ensure people’s wishes for their end-of-life care were clearly recorded.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us care calls were centred around them. People generally felt that the care workers came prepared and understanding of the tasks they had come to assist with. There were some exceptions to this such as staff not familiar to that person, but that was infrequent. People did feel involved and listened to when it came to what they needed.

Staff said they understood people’s likes, dislikes and preferred routines. Staff treated people as individuals, respecting their individual characteristics. Staff told us they gave people control of their care, without taking over unless this was necessary for safety or risk management.

People received support from a consistent staff team. People told us staff knew them well and were confident with the support they gave them. People told us they were asked about gender of preferences for those who supported them.

A staff member confirmed where possible they would adjust the timing of care calls to ensure people still received their planned care but were also able to attend healthcare appointments. They explained, "They always call us in advance, so we go onto the system and if someone is going to a medical appointment at 10.00am and want to change their call to 9.00am, we do change around according to their appointments."

A stakeholder told us they had good links with staff to ensure people’s care and treatment continued to be what they wanted. They told us of an example where people and staff wanted to reduce their care calls which would lead to a review of needs.

We found the electronic call allocation system allocated staff people preferred at times they wanted. This system allowed some flexibility in call timings to accommodate people’s healthcare appointments.

People had the information they needed to understand what care provision and when, was required. Most relatives enjoyed access to an 'app' which helped them to know when staff came, left and what they did. Relatives told us they could leave notes for care staff, such as cancelling or rearranging calls, or to do any additional tasks.

The manager told us they reviewed care plans to ensure they remained accurate. Two field co-ordinators had been recruited which would help ensure all care plans reflected people’s needs.

Staff supported people who shared the same language which helped aid clear communication. Processes included links with families via access to an ‘app’ and seeking people’s views through feedback to ensure any feedback and communication could be provided.

Most people felt they could raise concerns and that they would be listened too. Some people did give us examples of where they had raised concerns and action had been taken. In 2 examples, issues had repeated but action was taken to reduce those issues from reoccurring.

Staff understood how to support a person with an issue or complaint. One staff member said he would look for any evidence to support a concern, raise with the office and keep the person informed. Where complaints were raised, these were investigated.

Despite feedback being sought, not everyone knew who or how to raise a concern. Where feedback was sought, it was not always clear how people's feedback was obtained from people with limited communication. Some people had raised or shared feed back but they were not always pleased that some actions had not been taken to improve things in a prompt way.

People said the service was quite flexible. A relative said, “[Person] has a lot of hospital appointments, and we often have to change the times around of the visits to work around these appointments.” Another relative said they had information they took to the hospital which helped inform the hospital staff about recent care and treatments.

Staff described processes in place to share information and escalate concerns when required about people so they could get necessary healthcare support and treatment. Where people had difficulties accessing the appropriate treatment, staff supported people to ensure their needs were met.

There were processes in place to monitor people’s health to identify when they may need referral to other healthcare professionals. This included monitoring people’s blood pressure/oxygen and pulse. In some cases, records of what was checked and when, lacked consistency meaning systems and processes needed some improvement.

People spoke positively about the care they received. They told us they had access to appointments with other healthcare professionals when needed. Where they needed support to access healthcare, this was facilitated by staff if no family members or friends were involved. People were given opportunities to share their views and opinions through surveys and telephone reviews to inform how their care was planned and delivered.

Staff knew how each person needed their support personalised to them. Where people had difficulties expressing those needs, (one person could not verbalise) staff involved knew the person well enough to understand what they meant or wanted through their own ways of communicating.

Care plans reviewed promoted equality and people’s rights. A person’s mental health needs and the impact this had on their wellbeing were described sensitively. including key words for staff to use to reduce them becoming distressed.

In some cases we discussions had been held, people’s wishes were considered and respected. One relative said, “We have a lasting power of attorney and an action plan that we take to hospital when my relative has to go into hospital and they are aware of all that. There is a copy of [Relative] care plan in the book that we have and a copy of the ‘respect’ form (A personal recommendation form for a person’s clinical care and treatment in a future emergency in which they are unable to make or express choices).

Staff described where people had made advance decisions about their care should they become acutely unwell or they had a cardiac arrest, this was recorded in their support plans. Information about where these documents were kept in people’s homes was recorded and known by staff. This helped staff so they could be shared with other healthcare professionals without delay in an emergency situation.

Care plan evidence showed people’s EOL wishes were recorded if they chose to share this. Advocacy were involved, people's families to make any decisions re future care needs.