Care Outlook (East Sussex)

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This is the first assessment for this service following a change in provider. 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 received person centred care. Care that concentrated on their individual needs and how they preferred to be supported. Examples provided by relatives included, “They bath dad, they ask dad what he likes for breakfast,” “They (client) is hard of hearing, so the staff use note pads” and “Dad is always giving a choice in what he wears. I’ve noticed the staff greet dad first. They get a better greeting then I do.” Care plans were presented in a person centred way. The front page contained statements about the person for example: ‘I suffer with (overview of health needs),’ ‘On arrival please call out ‘hello’ when you enter. Introduce yourself if we’ve not met before’ and ‘Ensure you wash your hands.’ Staff put people and their wishes first one told us, “I have a client whose family visit. I arrange call times so we don’t overlap with their visits.”

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 registered manager told us that people were always given the choice of male or female carers and in a few cases people did express a preference, which was then complied with. The same small team of carers were assigned to clients so that people got to know their care support staff well. People were given rotas each week so they knew in advance who was coming and if there were any changes due to staff taking leave. A relative said, “There has only been one change this was due to sickness.” Another told us, “Yeah, every week I get the rota.” There were few reports of staff arriving late for calls. Staff told us they had enough time between care calls and that there was a procedure if they were unexpectedly running late. A person said, “They are never usually late and a couple of times when one carer has been the manager rang me to inform me they were stuck in traffic.” The timing of care calls was adjusted to meet people’s needs for example, slightly earlier calls if person was attending a day centre.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Rotas were provided to people and this was done using different formats if needed. Most were written but some people told us they preferred a phone call. People’s communication needs were considered. Some people lived with sensory issue for example not being able to either hear or see very well. Staff were aware of this and made sure they announced themselves clearly when arriving for each call. This was documented in care plans as well as people’s preferred ways of communicating. For example, some people preferred to be contacted by email or telephone, others by face to face meetings. The registered manager was aware of the accessible information standards (AIS) and policies were in place to cater for people’s needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People and relatives told us they felt confident to raise issues or concerns with care staff and managers and that they had the appropriate pathways to do this. A relative said, “Yeah, mum does have a voice, if she wasn’t happy, we would soon know about it.” Another added, “Yes, I would say he does have a voice and is able to raise concerns.” There were formal reviews of care carried out after six weeks following the start of a support package and there were regular reviews following this. These reviews involved people and relatives who were given the opportunity to comment and talk about things that were going well and things that needed improving. There was an annual survey offered to all people using the service. This asked questions about care, ease of communication and being able to raise concerns. An action plan was drawn up after each survey to make sure any concerns had been resolved.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The positive working relationship the service had with other professionals ensured that people received the right support at the right time. In most cases relatives arranged appointments and dealt with any urgent issues however staff supported when needed and were able to facilitate appointments and visits quickly. The registered manager told us that people got the support they needed and that they had established lines of communication with district nurses, GP surgeries and occupational therapists. People told us they were happy with the arrangements that were in place for contacting other services when required.

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. People were supported fairly and according to their specific needs. Any religious or cultural issues that were important to people were highlighted in care plans and staff were aware of these and respected them. Care calls and appointments were done at times that suited people and did not overlap with any arrangements they may already have in place. Staff told us that people and their families were all treated as individuals and that they provided the required support in a way that suited them.

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. Everyone was given the opportunity to discuss making advanced decisions about their care and any arrangements they wanted recording for their support in the future. Not everyone wanted to discuss this and these decisions were respected and recorded within care plans, to be reviewed at the next review meeting. Some care plans had details of what was important for people towards the end of their lives, who they wanted to be present, that they wanted to be made comfortable and decisions about resuscitation. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) forms which detailed these decisions were in place in most people’s care plans. People and their loved ones confirmed that these discussions had taken place one relative saying, “Yeah, currently (relative) wants to stay in their home and be supported there.” Staff had received training in end of life care and knew the important aspects of care at this important time. A staff member said, “Dignity is important. Protect them and be respectful. Family are important. Make everyone comfortable.” Another told us, “The structure is there if needed. What music or smells do they want, sensory needs are important. Also engaging with other services.”