Kensington Community Care Shropshire

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. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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.

People were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with the provider, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. People told us their care and support plans reflected what they expected from staff. These plans were personal to them and contained information for staff on how people wished to be supported. One relative told us their family member had a care plan in place which was reviewed on a regular basis. They stated this was personal and contained the information staff needed to provide effective support. It also included information about where their family member lived to minimise the potential risks to them from their environment which they felt was very personal. The management team reviewed people’s care and support plans on a regular basis or when there was a change of circumstance. For example, if someone’s mobility changed this resulted in an amended care plan to ensure they received consistent support from staff.

The service 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 encouraged to take responsibility for their own care needs in their own homes. This included arranging their own healthcare appointments. However, when this was required, and they did not have anyone to help them, staff members supported them in a way which empowered them to maintain their own wellbeing. One relative described how staff felt their family member was starting to struggle with certain aspects of their care. They made recommendations for adaptive equipment and how to refer for additional assessment and services. They directed the relative and supported them through the process to ensure their family member received continued care. Another person had care calls changed to accommodate their activities which empowered them to continue to be integrated in their local community.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had individual assessments which accounted for their specific communication requirements. For example, when people needed sensory aids like glasses or hearing aids these were recorded. The provider had processes in place should someone require large print information. One relative said the management team had provided a communication book which their family member could read and write in if they wanted. This helped them communicate with staff and relatives and pass important information or even observations like milk running short. This helped the person’s anxiety as they could effectively communicate with those assisting them.

The service 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 and relatives told us they knew how to raise a concern or to make a compliment. They said the service was responsive to comments and welcomed feedback. The service had a system in place to respond to any concerns raised including meeting with the person, investigating and feeding back within a reasonable timescale.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported by staff who were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support. People received support which was flexible to their needs. For example, if someone had a medical or personal appointment the provider ensured the care was flexible to accommodate and promote their needs and preferences. Everyone had access to an out of hours contact number which people used if they needed. People and relatives told us they received a positive response when they had used this point of contact.

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. Everyone we spoke with felt they were treated fairly and equally by the provider and the staff supporting them. The service complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. Everyone had their specific protected characteristics recorded and these were known and respected by the staff supporting them.

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. People, and when needed those close to them, were supported to identify their wishes for future care. These were recorded in their personal care and support plans which would move between alternative healthcare providers, if necessary, to ensure their wishes went with them.