Kelly Healthcare 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 provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and relatives felt the care they received was individual to their needs. One person said, “I stipulated, right at the beginning that I did not want male carers, they make sure not to send any. They know I am an early bird and make sure I have my visit before 9am.” Staff confirmed they were aware of people’s individual needs and preferences and delivered care to people aligned with these.

There were systems in place to ensure people were at the centre of their care when it was agreed and reviewed.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The leadership team told us there were systems in place to monitor and review care. We saw these systems were followed when needed. This included provisions to ensure consistent care was delivered.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

Leaders told us information was available to people in different formats if they required this. They confirmed people had individual plans in place identifying their preferred method of communication. Staff confirmed to us they were aware of these plans.

Care plans reflected how people communicated and the levels of support they needed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and relatives felt they were involved with their care, and they were listened to when needed. A relative told us, “I complained to [staff name] because the carers were coming later and later. She has sorted it out and they try to get to me by 9:30am. If they are going to be late, they let me know.”

Leaders told us how people were involved with their care; they told us they ensured people had the opportunity to provide feedback on their care and they used this information to make changes for people.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the providers own policy and procedure.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People raised no concerns with the support they received and had access to other health professionals.

There were processes in place that could be followed if needed. Leaders worked alongside external agencies, including the Local Authority who they could engage with if needed.

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.

Leaders were aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and were able to tell us the action they would take if concerns arose. There were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care.

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.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the planning of end-of-life care.

Leaders confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they were aware of action to take if needed and as part of their assessment process had considered people’s thoughts and preferences.