Freedom Care 24/7 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 service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection 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.

People told us they received person centred care that was tailored to their needs. They told us they were “very happy” with the care received. Care was planned and discussed with people, and care plans reflected those conversations. A relative told us, “The manager came in the morning and the care plan was written and up on the app by the evening. I check the app every day and it’s always updated with lots of detailed information.” Another relative told us the manager was quick to communicate with them and adjust the support provided in line with people’s changing needs. They said, “The advance planning and excellent communication, it takes all my anxiety away.”

Staff decided with the people they supported how the care should be delivered based on the persons wishes and preferences. A care worker told us, “I am always asking my client what she wants to do, like what she wants to do now, what she wants at lunch time or breakfast or if she wants to change. I am always asking her if she is comfortable or not.”

People received support from a consistent team of care workers that knew them well and was able to provide consistency in care delivery. A relative said, “[My family member] likes the same care workers. There are two care workers that are always coming who know her well.”

Staff told us they worked with the wider team and other healthcare professionals to ensure people received consistent support that was meeting their individual needs. Comments from staff included, “We need to communicate and agree the shift planning. In care we need to always plan our time and not rush our client”, and “One client…was visited by physiotherapy…he said she should do some exercises ... so we are helping her do this.”

Partner agencies felt they were unable to comment on the arrangements in place regarding care provision, integration and continuity.

People’s care records contained detailed information about other healthcare professionals involved in a person’s care, so staff knew who to escalate any concerns to should they require additional support with healthcare needs. Staff were also required to complete detailed notes on the care records system so information was available to others to enable consistency and continuity of care delivery.

People were happy with the information given to them and the way it was communicated. They found staff communicated with them politely and clearly, and written information was provided in a clear manner. Relatives had access to the electronic care records system so they were able to see what support was provided to their family member to aid communication.

Staff adjusted their communication styles depending on people’s individual communication needs. They understood the importance of providing information in a way people understood, so they could make informed decisions. Comments from care workers included, “After a few days we will start to know how the resident communicates, we will learn from them and of course treat them equally”, and “I will show them things and look for signs to see if they are happy and comfortable. I will give them hints so they can choose.”

Processes were in place to ensure the provider adhered to the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Appropriate policies were in place, and information could be provided in a variety of forms to meet people’s communication needs. Quality checks undertaken by the management team reviewed communication to ensure staff were speaking to people in a manner they understood and that was polite and respectful.

People and relatives felt listened to and involved in their care. They told us there was regular communication with the registered manager and felt comfortable approaching them. They said, “I cannot praise [the registered manager] more highly. He never runs out of patience. The best part is he gets back to us really quickly,” and “Every 4 weeks, the management ring to check everything is good. They are only a phone call away if there are any issues.”

Staff listened to people when they had any concerns about their care, and ensured the support provided was based on their individual preferences and wishes. Staff highlighted the need to make sure people felt able to speak up. One care worker told us, “For some clients, due to the relationship you build and the comfort they find from you they are more comfortable to tell me if something is wrong.” The registered manager emphasised the importance to them of having open communication with people and their relatives. They told us, “We want there to be an open culture and good communication, about even the smallest things so [people] receive a service they would like. A favourite meal for example.”

Clear systems were in place to ensure people’s views and opinions were regularly sought and listened to. This included regular contact from the management team to people and relatives to obtain feedback on their care. A complaints process was in place. However, no complaints had been received since the service started operating. The management team discussed with staff the complaints process, so they were aware of what to do should someone raise a concern to them.

People felt welcomed at the service and that staff were understanding and accepting of people’s differences. One relative told us, “They work with [their family member] and her [needs], no judgement, no eyebrow raising. They are so kind and understanding of the whole situation.”

The registered manager told us during their initial assessment they would review people’s needs and ensure equity in access. They told us, “Our admission form is based on the Equality Act 2010 and all our staff have done LBGT+ training. We are very open...everybody’s welcome.”

Partner agencies felt they were unable to comment on the arrangements in place regarding equity in access.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure equity in access to the service, and ensure people were not discriminated against.

People and relatives found staff “very respectful”. They said staff took account of and respected their gender, religion and culture.

Staff understood the importance of, and respected people’s individual differences, including their religion and cultures. They provided support in response to people’s wishes and their protected characteristics. Comments from staff included, “I give respect to their religion and their culture”, and “My religion is different to the client’s religion. I will maintain their dignity and respect their religion.”

Staff had received training on equality and diversity and supporting people from the LGBTQ+ community. People’s pronouns and preferred names were clearly documented in their care records. Processes were in place to ensure people’s individual needs were met and respected.

The people and relatives we spoke with told us no-one was nearing the end of their life so they didn’t wish to discuss planning for the future with us.

The staff we spoke to told us they were not currently supporting anyone on end-of-life care. However, they knew where to look for information about peoples end of life care decisions.

Systems were in place to discuss end of life care and planning for the future, to ensure people’s needs and wishes were identified, should this type of care be required. People’s care records were clear as to whether they had chosen for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation to be attempted or not, should this be required.