We Care Chorlton

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

Processes were in place to ensure staff were able to escalate any issues of concern. People had communication plans in their care plans and staff understood their needs. People and their families told us communication with the service was quite good and they felt able to raise concerns when they needed to. There was a low level of formal complaints as the service focused on resolving concerns quickly and informally. People and their families did not report any barriers to accessing other health and social care support. Staff supported them to do so when needed. Staff received equality and diversity training, and the provider was aware of the importance of treating people from all backgrounds equally.

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.

People who had no concerns about staff punctuality told us they were treated with dignity and respect. We received the following positive feedback, ‘Yes, we have got to know each other very well, staff always ask as well, they never assume’ and ‘The staff are very courteous and kind, treating [relative] with dignity and respect.’

Staff were able to explain how they always asked for consent before providing care and how they treated people with dignity and respect.

Staff understood the importance of escalating any concerns to the office to enable office staff to contact other services, such as the contact centre at the council, for example.

We received mixed feedback from 5 social workers who had experience of working with the service. Two were very positive and 2 were negative.

Key processes were in place to ensure staff were able to escalate any concerns to the local authority when required.

Experts by Experience spoke to 10 people and 32 relatives. We received no concerns about information not being provided in the right format or people’s communication needs not being understood.

Staff told us care plans contained the relevant information including communication plans.

We reviewed 10 care plans. People had communication plans detailing their individual needs.

Most of the people and families we spoke to told us the communication with the service was good. They were able to raise concerns if they needed to. They told us, ‘I always get a positive response from the office, if I have to raise any sort of issue’ and ‘The office team do respond to any queries, and they do call us about once a month to do a quality assurance checks.’

Staff told us there was an open culture where they could raise concerns about poor practice if required. They were encouraged to report concerns to the office.

The service had systems in place to capture people’s feedback. People were provided with information about how to complain. Complaints were logged on a central system and investigated to ensure shortfalls were addressed. Records were not always well organised, but we did see evidence complaints were responded to promptly. People and their families were contacted by phone on a monthly basis to request feedback on their experience of the service. This regular contact was positive, but they had not always been effective. One family member told us, ‘The office do phone to check about once a month, but it appears to be a business tick box from a preprepared screen and nothing personal about [relative] when they check.’ We had also queried the content of the checklist and if they were effective or not. The Nominated individual updated the checklist during the inspection. The service received and logged compliments and rewarded staff when they received consistently good feedback.

People told us they were supported to access the support they required.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support. Senior leaders told us the two key themes impacting on the community currently were loneliness and poverty.

We received feedback from 5 social workers. No concerns were raised about equity in access. One did comment the service went out of its way to accommodate someone, who had previously had a poor experience accessing domiciliary care support.

There was an equality and diversity policy providing guidance on the importance of treating people equally. This was further supported by staff training and additional support was provided to staff when required.

We spoke to people about their experience of care. They did not report any barriers to care related to discrimination.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support.

Staff received equality and diversity training. This helped staff to understand and value difference.

No one was being supported with end-of-life care currently.

People who approached end of their life would be identified. This information would then be shared with other services and staff.