Assured Care Southport

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

Our rating has changed from inadequate to good. People received a service which was person centred and revolved around their personal wishes and preferences in care. Care plans were written in a respectful way. Aspects of care including when people had made decisions about care at the end of their life were clear for staff to follow and written in a sensitive manner. Further development was needed to ensure information provided by the service was in formats which were accessible to all people. People knew how to complain and to offer feedback about the service. People also knew who they would go to escalate concerns if they needed to.

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 they received care which was delivered around their needs and preferences by staff who knew them well. We were told, “[Staff] know me well and know my routine” and, “I have a shower three times a week. Sometimes I don’t want one and that’s ok.” One person told us staff had a good understanding of their complex medical condition and understood how they both needed and wanted to be supported with this aspect of their care. Family members told us staff took a personal interest in people. One commented, “[Staff] know [Name] well. They took a real interest in their birthday.”

Staff were able to describe what person-centred care meant and gave examples how they applied this when providing care and support to people. One staff member told us, “[It means] treating somebody with respect and dignity, you are looking after them, have to fulfil their wishes. Do not take the decision for them. I like to treat people like I would like to be treated. I always involve clients in what I do.”

People were happy with the flexibility and continuity of care provided. This included when receiving support from a range of health and social care providers. For example, one person described how staff adjusted their support hours during a hospital admission. The staff member worked alongside the hospital staff to meet their needs.

Staff told us they knew people well and consistently supported the same people. This enabled staff to recognise changes in a person and seek appropriate advice or care. One staff member said, “We go in to the same people so know straightaway if there is something not right. We share with the office straight away as they may need a doctor. We also document and let family know of any concerns. Staff also used internal communication methods to share minor concerns and observations of people to alert the following shift of staff.

Feedback about the responsiveness of the Assured Care Southport to deliver a joined-up approach to care and continuity for people from partners who worked with the service varied. Whilst partners all told us they had no concerns about the direct care delivered to people, one partner consistently shared frustrations about how the provider did not work effectively with the local authority during a recent transfer of people to another care provider. We shared this feedback with the provider.

Care plans were detailed, person-centred and had good information about what was important to and for the person. Information about other agencies involved in a person’s care were also recorded.

People were provided with accurate information about their care in formats tailored to individual needs. For example, one person told us they received a weekly rota so they knew who would be supporting them. They said, “I get emailed a rota. [Staff] wear a uniform, and tags with name and introduce themselves.” People also had the opportunity to review and share information through regular reviews.

Staff gave examples of how they would adapt their communication style to meet people’s needs, for example, by writing something down if needed. Staff ensured confidential records about people were stored securely and were aware of who they could and couldn’t share information withy. One staff member said, “I don’t speak to anyone about service users. Any paperwork goes straight back to the office so no-one sees it.” The registered manager told us information about the service was available in different font sizes to assist people and, if required, could be produced into other languages or brail.

People had access to information about the service as well as information about their medical and conditions within their care file. This file was stored in the person’s home. Further development should be considered to the service user guide including an easier to read guide to ensure the provider could demonstrate they were considering the needs of people who didn’t use written word formats. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would review their current practice.

People told us they knew how to raise a complaint about the service or share feedback. People also knew who to complain to and gave examples of whether this had been effective. For example, one person said, “I would ring the office. I complained about one [staff member], and she never came again. They dealt with it very quickly.” Another person told us, “One [Staff member] came too late for breakfast and when I rang the office. They had a reasonable explanation, and I was satisfied.”

Staff knew the actions they should take in response to a complaint being raised to them. Comments included, “I would ring the manager and explain it” and, “I would get the person to ring the office, or I'd speak to the office to let them know that the person is not happy.” The registered manager told us they were planning to send out new surveys to gain feedback on people’s levels of satisfaction with the service.

There was a complaints policy and information was shared with people through the service guide. Records were maintained of complaints and compliments about the service which had been received. Logs were maintained of all feedback including how feedback had been addressed.

People told us they received care and support when they needed it, and staff considered their individual needs.

Generally, staff felt they had the time they needed to support people in a responsive manner. They said, “I never rush, have the right amount of time” and, “I think people get their visits when they want them. I've seen a person not happy with a call and can it be changed. I don’t really feel like I'm rushing people. All my calls are not too bad. I've asked for additional time when needed and that has been accommodated as they would know the person needed the extra help.”

Partners who worked with Assured Care Southport told us people received care when they needed.

Records were maintained when people accessed support from other services. Where appropriate, important contact details were contained within care plans.

People told us they were satisfied with the service they received, and their views were sought. One family member commented, “[Name] is certainly encouraged to voice an opinion. They insist on it.” Another person told us, “All the information I need in a thick folder. Complaints procedure too.”

Staff described how people’s views we sought. One staff member said, “We always get feedback from families and people. Managers do reviews with people and families and ask them how things are going.” Staff also gave examples of how they helped people to improve their lifestyle opportunities through supporting people to make healthier choices as well as seeking equipment to enable people to continue with their leisure interests.

Care records demonstrated occurrences when the provider had actively listened to people and made changes in response to feedback received. For example, changing of staff team and adapting support when people went to hospital.

Some people we spoke with told us they had shared details about their plans for the future. This included end of life care wishes and whether they had chosen to have a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order in place. One person said, “I have discussed DNACPR and its in my care plan I think.”

Staff told us they had completed online training around delivering palliative care to people. They also spoke about positive relationships with the district nursing team. Some staff told us they had experience of discussing peoples wishes with them and demonstrated a sensitive approach to this. The registered manager told us they were always available to support people who used the service, their loved ones and staff during these times.

Records confirmed staff had received training around the delivery of end-of-life care. Where appropriate, end of life care wishes was clearly documented in care plans and reflected people’s cultural or religious beliefs. Care plans clearly stated where copies of a person’s DNACPR were located.