Caring Direct Ltd

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 service was previously registered at a different address. This is the first assessment for the service at this address. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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.

The provider had not ensured people’s care was person-centred. People were not fully involved in making decisions about how and when they wanted their care or kept updated about changes to their planned care. People’s care plans were not up to date or adequately personalised to reflect what was important to them. The language used in people’s care records was task-based and did not provide sufficient details about how they liked to be supported. Some of the language used did not promote person-centred, dignified care. People told us they did not always feel confident staff knew them well or understood their routines and preferences.

The provider did not always ensure people’s care was well organised in order to meet their assessed needs. People and those important to them told us their care was not always consistent or delivered in a way that worked well for them. The provider was not able to demonstrate how they had considered the different needs and preferences of individual people to ensure staff rotas and care visits were planned appropriately.

The provider supplied information to people in formats tailored to their individual needs. For example, managers had arranged for documents to be produced in large print and braille. Staff told us they provided additional support to people by reading information to them when necessary.

The provider had processes in place to gather feedback from people and those important to them. However, we found these processes had not effectively identified the concerns shared with us during the assessment process. Managers told us they would review their systems to enable more targeted feedback and the option to respond anonymously if required.

People, relatives and staff knew how to contact the provider and how to access the service’s out of hours support when needed. People told us that despite their concerns with the timing and punctuality of their care, visits were not missed and they knew how to contact a member of the management or on-call team. One relative told us, “There’s never been an occasion when they haven't been able to cover.”

The provider had considered the needs of people who were more likely to encounter inequality in experience or outcomes and ensured staff were provided with additional training to understand the impact of this. For example, staff had received specialised training around supporting people living with dementia to promote better awareness.

The provider considered people’s future planning including any end of life care wishes as part of their initial assessment of people’s needs. Where appropriate, the provider had worked with other healthcare professionals to provide end of life support to meet people’s needs.