Care Needs Limited Stockport

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’s individual needs were met. Staff received training and had their competencies periodically checked and assessed.

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.

Overall people received person-centred care. People told us staff supported them with their daily routines and individual choices. One person told us:” I make choices about my food, my drinks, when I go to bed and when I get up. “One relative told us: “They do know how to support my loved one and they have a good relationship with them.” Another relative told us:“The carers are brilliant and have so much humour with them, - they make them feel comfortable." Person-centred care delivered to people had not always been reflected in people’s care plans and their daily notes completed by staff.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and knew how to meet them. One staff member told us: I support a person with dementia who can get upset but I reassure her, and she calms down".

There were appropriate processes and procedures in place regarding ensuring people were receiving person-centred care.

People received care and support that was tailored to their needs. People told us they were involved in their care and felt they could speak up and share their feedback. One person told us: “I have a care plan, and I go through it every 6 months.”

One relative told us: “We speak with the office often.” Another relative told us: “My loved one can speak their mind, and they do so.” There were effective processes in place to support joint work with professionals and stakeholders. People received support and care from professionals when needed such as the GP or District Nurses. We did not receive much feedback from the professionals regarding working with the provider.

People received information in a way that was tailored to their communication needs. For example, the provider showed us a copy of the service user guide printed in Braile for a person who is visually impaired. The provider also told us there is an interpreter available for both people and staff if required. Peoples’ care plans contained information regarding their communication needs.

Staff had good understanding of people’s communication needs and knew how to meet them. One staff member told us: “People who are non-verbal they can still speak. I would always observe their body language.”

People and their families knew who to speak to in order to raise concerns and to provide feedback. One person told us: “I would speak to the carers or the office.” One relative told us: “I would call the office; the communication is good.” The provider showed us evidence of gathering people’s views during service reviews and evidence of completed people’s surveys. People and their relatives have access to electronic information through the provider’s system and could use this to share their feedback. However, there was no evidence how any of the received feedback was analysed and used to improve outcomes for people or the quality of care delivered to people making the existing processes and procedures less effective. We told provider about this.

People were supported to access services when needed. People were supported to access GP practices and received involvement from other professionals such as District Nurses, continence service or Speech and Language Therapists. There were processed in place to support people’s access to the services they needed to ensure they receive appropriate support when required.

People were supported to access the services they needed. Staff and the provider told us about working with professionals and stakeholders to support and meet outcomes for people. Provider told us about seeking people’s feedback in regard to their care and support and we saw evidence of this in the form of completed service reviews and feedback forms. There were processes in place to support people in expressing their views and gathering feedback about their care. However, there was no evidence how gathered feedback was used to improve the quality of care delivered to people and their outcome.

There was some information regarding people’s future planning including end of life wishes included in people’s care plan. However, this information was low on detail. There was no evidence people were actively supported to make plans regarding their end of life or how they would like their future care needs to be supported. There were records people had DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) forms in place and the service worked with the GP to ensure people received the necessary care and treatment.