Yorkshire Community 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection for this service. 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 service 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. For example, we saw how people were regularly reviewed and reassessed by the clinical lead to ensure their choices and preferences could be delivered by Yorkshire Community Healthcare. This included making sure a translator was always made available, funded by Yorkshire Community Care. This ensured the person felt involved and in control of their own care. Another person required the use of an app to be able to communicate with staff. There were detailed instructions around how to do this, as well as how to support this person with their hair and make-up application. We saw how transport was arranged to help staff travel to their shifts during snow, and poor weather to ensure people still received their care and support by their own consistent staff team. One person required a specific set up at home to enable them to still be part of their family, while ensuring care was not intrusive. The provider had set up a detailed agreement for this so staff could continue to do their jobs safely, while the person felt part of their family.

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 were supported to access the amenities in their local community, and the provider worked closely with local charities and communities.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We saw how reviews and quality assurance gathering was made available to people in formats they could understand and be involved. For example, one person had a translator attend who would communicate this in their own language. Another person had information available in their app.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they felt they could raise concerns and complaints if needed. People and all professionals told us the provider had acted upon complaints and concerns. One person told us they had to raise a concern a few times, however felt this was better now since the new manager had joined the organisation.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw numerous examples of people being supported quickly and referred in a timely manner when their support needs, such as their swallow function, had changed.

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. For example, we saw care notes which detailed how staff had chased up appointments for people and made additional referrals due to their complex medical needs.

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. Each person’s support journey was unique. There was clear and appropriate discussions taking place every few months around people’s future plans.