Magnus Care 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 is our first assessment of the service. We have rated this key question good.

The registered manager understood people’s needs and worked well with staff and others to ensure people received a joined-up approach to care. They advocated well for people to ensure they received the right support and advice when needed when their needs changed. People and relatives, we spoke with felt the registered manager and staff listened to their views and took them on board.

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 told us staff knew them well, supported them in their preferences and understood what was important to them. One relative told us, “I’ve been asked for my feedback and any changes have always been made where possible, we all feel supported by the staff.”

Staff told us they were fully involved with people’s planning and where appropriate, any relatives or significant others. People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People confirmed their care was delivered in a way which met their assessed needs. People received well-coordinated and consistent care from staff who knew them well.

Staff followed advice from external health professionals when asked, which helped to meet people's assessed needs.

People received consistent care from staff who understood their needs well. There was evident mutual understanding and respect between staff, people who used the service and other healthcare providers.

Processes were in place to ensure when people’s care involved external services, it was delivered in a co-ordinated way which met their needs and preferences. The electronic care system enabled time responsive recording; this supported staff to document all interventions made to support person-centred care.

People confirmed they were able to receive information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way they understood, and which met their communication needs. One person told us, “The management always keep me in the loop, the registered manager will reply straight away, I never have to worry about not being included.”

Care staff were well supported by an office team. Information was shared efficiently between then, and with people who used the service.

Processes were in place to ensure people’s needs to receive information were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. There was an accessible information procedure in place. Polices such as safeguarding and complaints were provided to people in formats they were able to understand.

People confirmed they knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues. People felt listened to and were able to give their views freely. People also knew who to approach if they were not happy. Relatives also told us they felt listened to. One relative said, “I feel listened to, I’ve made requests before, and they’ve done everything to help.”

We viewed written surveys which had been submitted by people and staff. We saw examples of how people's responses were considered by the provider and acted on.

Processes were in place to ensure people’s voices were heard, and any concerns raised were treated with compassion and as an opportunity to learn.

People’s experience confirmed they were able to access care and treatment and any external services. People were supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs.

People, staff and relatives felt they could raise any issues, and they would be dealt with openly and effectively.

Care planning was sufficiently detailed to keep people safe.

The registered manager had effective initial systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

People experienced a personalised approach from the service, which ensured equity of experiences.

The registered manager made sure staff understood people’s needs, aspirations and anxieties and put in place the right processes to support them.

Staff provided the tailored care and support set out in care planning information.

No one using the service was receiving end of life care, but staff were alert to the need to monitor people’s changing needs, and to discuss these with people.

Care planning and links with local clinicians meant the service could support people to stay in their homes as long as they were able.

The provider ensured there were policies and procedures in place regarding providing care for people reaching the end of their life.