Crestar Healthcare

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

People who use the service felt listened to and involved in the care they received. Systems and processes were in place to assess personal individual needs, wishes and preferences. Communication methods were in place for people and staff to be up to date with any information or changes. People felt listened to and saw improvements to the service provided.

This service scored 68 (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 the staff always provide choices and options to them. People were involved in the completion and reviewing of their care plan. Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and captured individual wishes and preferences. We saw where any changes had been identified, a review with the person was conducted by the provider to ensure care plan records were accurate to their changing needs. People told us they felt listened to and staff knew them well.

People consistently told us how they receive consistent care. The care provided matches the agreed care plan in place. People told us, staff were inclusive and ensured they had choice and access to outside professionals. 1 person told us, 'I am always offered choices, my carers don't just do things'.

Staff showed understanding of people’s diverse health needs. Staff were provided training opportunities which skilled them to provide care according to the needs of individuals. We saw health management plans were generic and not person centred. This was raised this with the registered manager who told us they would review the management plans in place.

The provider had in place systems and processes to monitor the completion and reviewing of people’s care. This consisted of dates recorded for when care plans and risks assessments were completed and requiring review. We did not always see responsive action from the registered manager to improve continuity of care for people. For example, where care call times were consistently late, no formal monitoring or action plan was found to be in place.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People told us they had opportunities to provide feedback on the service they received. People told us that daily during their delivery of care, they provided feedback to staff. Some people told us the office contacting them and asked for feedback. However, people could not tell us how often they were asked for feedback on the service and were unsure of completing a formal survey. The registered manager told us how feedback was sought from people who use service. We saw evidence where people had been listened to and feedback used to make improvements

Staff listened to people and showed respect in understanding people’s voice. Care plans and risk assessments involved people and relatives.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People told us they were treated with respect and as an individual. People did not feel unfairly treated and told us, ‘The staff always show respect’. People raised no concerns during this assessment in the way they were treated. We saw people’s care plans considered different ways of support, for example, different religions were considered and if any adaptions to care were required this was added into the care they received.

The provider had in place a system that gained regular feedback from people. The registered manager told us how they listen to people’s needs and include the person to achieve outcomes that are suitable to them. The registered manager demonstrated good understanding of tailoring care to meet people’s personal needs and characteristics. The provider had in place a system that gained regular feedback from people.

People told us how the service had improved since the last inspection. One person told us, ‘Things are better now’. People were encouraged to make informed decisions, and this was seen to be done in a way that was respectful to them. In people’s homes where they had Deprivation of Liberty (Dols )in place, we saw the provider had a tracker in place to monitor the dates of DoLs and review dates, this meant oversight over potential restrictions on people were monitored.

The provider had an end of life policy and procedure in place. Staff were aware of the policy and how to care for a person at the end of their life. The registered manager told us how they provide support to staff and how they assess and gather information of people on end of life pathways. Care plans had a section and detail where end of life was considered and inputted. We spoke with the registered manager during the assessment as some sections of the care plan were blank, however, a conversation may of taken place but this was not recorded in the care plan record. The registered manager told us they would review and add where needed the conversation that took place with people and relatives.