Kaplan Care

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

We found that the service continues to Require Improvement in relation to the Responsive domain. We identified one breach of the legal regulations. The provider did not deal with concerns and complaints the service received effectively to ensure they were used to drive improvement. People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning and reviewing their care. However, they told us staff did not always follow specific guidance on how people’s care should be delivered.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care was not always delivered in a person-centred way. One relative told us staff had failed to deliver basic care to their loved one in the way that met their loved one’s needs. For example, staff had not followed the instructions they had given regarding their loved one’s daily meal options. Staff offered them the same food and were not creative in planning their meals and did not always encourage their loved one to try other alternative meals. People’s care visit times were adjusted based on their needs. People and their relatives told us they could ask the provider to change the times of visits to meet people's needs, and where possible this was implemented. One relative told us they had requested for a change of the times of visits on a couple of occasions and their request was accommodated.

Staff told us they followed people’s care plans which provided information about people’s individual needs and how to meet them. Staff told us they informed peoples’ relatives about changes in peoples’ needs, and they shared information with each other. Staff told us they involved people in making decisions about their day-to-day care and respected the choices they made.

People told us staff supported with what they needed as agreed in their care plans. Staff understood their health and social care needs. Where possible people had the same care staff who attended to them to ensure continuity in care delivery. People and their relatives confirmed that staff worked closely with them and professionals involved to meet people’s needs. They invited staff to review meetings with other services involved in people care.

Staff told us they liaised with people’s relatives, GP and other services to meet people’s needs. For example, one person’s care record had contact details of the service to contact should there be a problem with their catheter. Staff told us there was a continuity of care because people were cared for by a team of regular staff where possible. This helped build relationships and understanding of people’s needs.

We contacted health and social care professionals involved in people’s care for feedback but did not receive any feedback.

People’s care and support was planned based on their assessed needs. The provider worked closely with people and their relatives to meet people's needs. Care plans had details of people’s health and social care services, and the health care professionals involved in people's care. Where people’s relatives delivered aspects of their care, care plans stated this. The provider told us the continuing care team were involved for one person’s care, and they had given staff training on how to support the person.

People and relatives told us they were given a service user guide which contained information about the service when they started using the service. The service user guide included details of the providers’ philosophy of care, complaint procedure, and services offered. People and their relatives knew their care plans.

Staff told us they communicated with people in the way they understood using both verbal and non-verbal methods including body language, and gestures. Staff told us they supported people to put on their hearing aids if they used any. Staff told us they discussed people’s care plans with them.

The provider had a service user guide which provided information about the service. This was given to people when they first started using the service. People and their relatives had access to their care plans. The provider told us they would provide information to people in other accessible formats if people required this such as in large prints and in other languages. People's records were stored securely. Staff understood the importance of maintaining confidentiality and they ensured people’s personal information was protected.

People knew how to complain about the service. They told us they would contact the provider if they had complaints. However, feedback we received was that they had problems contacting the provider in the past because they were not always available. People and their relatives also felt that their complaints were not always addressed effectively, and lessons were not always learned from them. One relative told us they had complained to the provider about the same issue more than once before it was resolved.

Staff knew the provider’s complaint procedure. They knew to notify the provider if people expressed their dissatisfaction about the service. Staff told us they would let the provider know but we found that staff did not always inform the provider of people’s concerns or complaints before escalating them to external agencies.

The provider had a complaint policy in place, but they did not follow their complaint procedure. We found that the provider had not been keeping records of complaints made about the service. There had been three complaints about the provider that we had been made aware of, but the provider had not recorded these or maintained records of the actions they took to address them. We discussed our concerns with the provider, and they said the concerns and complaints were not raised with them directly. We were concerned that complaints were not being addressed appropriately and effectively, the opportunity to listen to people, staff and relatives was lost, as was the opportunity to learn and improve the service from them.

People told us they had access to support when they needed it. People’s preferences were respected with regards to the times of their visits and the staff they preferred to carry out their care visits. People were supported to access a range of services they needed to maintain their health and well-being.

Staff told us they supported people to access services they needed. For example, if people were unwell and needed the ambulance, they supported them to call for one. Staff also told us they liaised with appropriate services to ensure people had the aids and adaptations they needed to promote their safety and improve their care. Staff told us if they were concerned about people's health, they would inform people's relatives or contact their GP. They said they were happy to make referrals to services where needed to meet people's needs.

We contacted health and social care professionals involved in people’s care for feedback but did not receive any feedback.

Care plans evidenced that peoples’ care was planned based on their needs. Care plans included emergency contact details and staff knew services to contact in various situations.

People and their relatives told us staff treated them with respect and promoted their rights. They told us that the provider had recently asked them to give feedback about the service they received. One relative said, "I have given [the provider] my thoughts and [the provider] is making changes to improve."

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity. They told us they treated people with respect and promoted their rights. They told us they respected people’s rights, social status, religion, culture and other protected characteristics. One member of staff said, “Some people do not want you to wear shoes into their home, I respect that.” They also commented, “Some people might want you to read religious books to them, I read to them as they wish.”

Care plans stated people’s protected characteristics and showed how the service supported them with this. For example, people with limited mobility were provided with mobility aids to access the community. Training records showed that staff had received training in equality and diversity. However, there was no process to enable staff reflect on their learning and share their experiences in this area.

People and their relatives had the opportunity to express their end-of-life care wishes including their decision where to be cared for. People told us staff knew their wishes and supported them. They told us staff cared for them with dignity and respect.

Staff knew people’s end-of-life wishes. They told us they supported people to maintain good personal hygiene and promoted their dignity. Staff knew services to involve and to communicate their concerns appropriately to people’s relatives and professionals. Staff confirmed they had received training on end-of-life care.

Training record showed staff had undertaken end-of-life care training. One person’s care plan included information about their end-of-life wishes including their resuscitation status. Care plans contained updated information from health care professionals to ensure staff supported and respected people’s wishes.