Generations 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 care and support based on their individual care and support needs, preferences and routines. One person told us care was delivered in a way which suited them and said, “They (staff) know what they’re doing.” Staff told us they supported people to make choices so they could be at the centre of their care and support. The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any changes in people’s needs. Where people had requested staff to continue wearing face masks when entering their home/supporting them with personal care, a risk assessment was in place for staff to follow.

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. People received support from a consistent staff team. People told us, staff knew them and their needs. People told us, “They always seem to know what’s going on and what they’re doing.” Staff confirmed they supported the same people, and this enabled consistency and continuity in the care and support people received. Staff told us how they worked with external professionals to support people for example if someone’s needs had increased to ensure additional support was requested.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Some relatives had access to an 'app' which helped them to know when staff arrived for a care call, what they did and what time they left. Relatives told us they could leave feedback for staff on the app, such as any additional tasks required. Staff supported people who shared the same language which helped aid clear communication. Processes were in place to record people’s communication needs and any equipment or adaptations they needed to ensure they understood information about their care. However, staff were updated about any changes to people’s needs through a communication channel. The provider needed to consider how this communication channel met their confidentiality policies.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People using the service and their relatives felt their communication needs were met and staff listened to them. Relatives told us they were asked for their opinions about their family member’s care and the service they received through regular reviews or annual surveys. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could contact the provider and speak directly to office staff through an on-call phone line. The registered manager told us they had an out of hours service which was managed by care coordinators in case people required additional support. Staff provided examples of how they supported people to access care and support when they needed it.

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 using the service and their relatives felt their diverse needs were met. Staff shared examples of how the provider had given them information to help explain about different cultures. This included workshops and how to cook different meals. Staff undertook training to promote their understanding of equality and diversity.

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. No person using the service was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment. One staff member told us, how they had supported a person in the past who was receiving end of life care. They said, “The client used to refuse us doing care tasks, they had given up because they knew they were dying. It was disheartening but I tried to create an environment where we had trust. I would encourage them to keep going and laughing with them, we used to get the tasks done such as washing and dressing.” Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place and recorded in people’s care plans.