CSS Care 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. For this key question we assessed the quality statements relating to; providing information and listening to and involving people. We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. The provider failed to ensure information was provided in a way that was tailored to people’s individual communication needs. This had impacted the experiences of some people. We saw evidence of a complaints policy, though leaders could not tell us how they responded to or monitored concerns. People told us they were not always given a response about what had changed as a result of their feedback.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We received limited feedback specifically around the provider meeting people’s communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. However, some people told us communication was not tailored to their needs, giving examples of how language barriers between themselves and staff impacted their experiences. People and relatives confirmed they received clear and transparent information around price increases and making complaints.

The manager had a limited understanding of the Accessible Information Standard, and the provider confirmed they relied on relatives to translate information such as the service user guide rather than providing alternative formats. A staff member told us some colleagues who did not speak English as a first language had struggled to communicate effectively with people in their care.

Processes to ensure people’s communication needs were identified, recorded and shared with staff were lacking and there was no evidence the Accessible Information Standard had been considered. Reasonable adjustments had not been made for those people who did not speak English as a first language or had difficulties reading or writing. Information was not available in alternative formats to meet their individual needs and preferences.

People and relatives knew how to raise concerns about their experiences of care and support, though not everyone felt confident complaints would be taken seriously or explored thoroughly.

The provider could not talk to us about actions taken following a recent complaint . We were not assured about how feedback was acted on or whether people were kept informed of what improvements were made as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy, but systems and processes were not embedded to learn from any information of concern received. We were made aware of a recent complaint the provider had been asked to investigate. However, we could see no record of the outcome of the investigation or action taken in response, and there was no evidence the complaint had been logged to support ongoing monitoring. We saw limited evidence that people, relatives or staff had been given the opportunity to feedback about their experiences of CSS Care Ltd. Recent surveys had been conducted and whilst some responses had been positive, improvements taken as a result of feedback were not documented or shared. The provider demonstrated some staff meetings had taken place, though full documentation of the meetings and agreed actions was not available.

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.