Global House Facilities (UK) Ltd

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

During our assessment of this key question, we identified two breaches of the regulations. The provider failed to ensure that people using the service received person-centred care which reflected their personal preferences. The provider failed to provide safe effective care, leadership, governance and to have and maintain robust oversight of the service and its delivery. However, some people and their relatives told us, they have care plan as agreed and they were involved in it. People and their relatives were satisfied with staff team and the provider for the care and support they received. Some staff completed feedback survey, and their responses were positive.

This service scored 43 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they had a care plan and were involved in planning their care. Some people and their relatives told us, they have care plan as agreed and they were involved in it. One person told us, “I have a care plan and It’s kept up to date with my input”. All my individual needs are fully met, and I couldn’t complain in any way”. A relative said, “We have a care plan as agreed, and I have full involvement and I’m allowed to share communications with it”. Another relative commented, “All our needs are well met to satisfactory levels with all areas of care”.

The provider previous commissioners informed the CQC of missed care visits and late visits to people using the service.

There was a lack of systems and tools in place to ensure the provider worked effectively with commissioning partners and to implement a safe and effective handover and transfer of care process ensuring continuity in people's care. The provider was not proactive in seeking ways to participate and communicate with commissioning bodies and with health and social care professionals. This assessment of the service was in part conducted due to concerns raised by a commissioning authority. The provider had failed to ensure people’s safety to deliver their care, communicate concerns to the commissioners, to provide alternative care arrangements when care workers were unavailable to carry out their duties and to raise a safeguarding referral to the local authority. There were limited processes in place for reviewing and improving communication internally and with external health and social care partners. There was little evidence of interagency and partnership working, and the provider failed to become involved in practice forums, system meetings, provider support, commissioner quality assurance or communication with other parts of the local system with which the service has links. Arrangements in place for the availability and service provision, integrity and confidentiality of data was not robust nor effective. Records were not contemporaneous and assessment tools were not in place or completed appropriately or at all. Information and processes were lacking and not used effectively to monitor and improve the quality-of-care people received.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and their relatives were satisfied with staff team and the provider for the care and support they received.

We drew this omission to the registered managers attention who informed us that they would implement appropriate systems and tools. We will check on the implementation of this at our next assessment of the service. Some staff completed feedback survey, and their responses were positive. A staff member told us, “The manager is a good person. He tells us what to do. We have a care plan to follow. We give them feedback, the manager comes to assess, and anything family need to be told, like a client returning from hospital then the manager comes for assessment. If there is new occurrence about the client, we call the manager and tell him. The manager will tell us what to do, like talking to the family member.” Another member of staff said, “The manager treats us well. He is just a nice person. When the things you want to know, he will put it through and explains to you.”

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure in place which informed people on how to make a complaint and what they could expect in response. However, we found that the provider was not proactive in seeking ways to communicate with commissioning bodies, health and social care professionals and to address concerns, complaints and issues promptly and appropriately. This assessment of the service was in part conducted due to concerns raised by a commissioning authority. There were no systems in place to actively seek the views of a wide range of stakeholders, including people using the service, staff, professionals, commissioners, local groups and members of the public about their experience of, and the quality of care and treatment delivered by the service. There were no systems in place to analyse and respond to information and feedback gathered, including taking action to address issues where they were raised, and to learn from them. This placed people using the service and staff at risk of potential harm.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.