Continuity Healthcare Services Private Limited

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 assessed all the quality statements in the Responsive key question.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about the way care was planned. Some people felt the service met their specific needs. Others said the service was planned around the needs and availability of staff and was not personalised. Examples given included call times which did not meet their needs and a lack of choice about gender of staff that provided care for them.

Staff told us they responded to people’s needs on each visit. They said the care plans were available on their electronic handsets. The registered manager was aware of the feedback from some people. The service had identified the need to improve consistency of call times to ensure care was being provided in ways that met people’s specific needs, including the gender of staff providing care.

People did not specifically comment on care provision, integration and continuity and no concerns in these areas were raised.

Staff worked with other agencies to make sure people’s care was delivered. The registered manager said they worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to ensure people received continuity of care.

We asked the local authority for feedback and no concerns were raised about the way the service ensured continuity of care for people.

People’s care records demonstrated the service had worked with other care providers and health services to ensure people received continuity of care.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about the information they received. Some people said they received clear information they could access, which was regularly updated. Others said they had not received any written information from the service.

The registered manager told us they had experienced problems ensuring everyone received up to date care plan documents and were working with their supplier to find a solution. In response to the concerns people had raised they had started sending people paper copies of their plans. The registered manager was monitoring this through their improvement plan, to ensure people received the information they needed.

People's communication needs had been assessed and a communication care plan had been developed. Care records demonstrated the communication plans were followed, for example using written communication for a person with hearing loss. However, the systems to ensure people were provided with relevant information were not effective and were being addressed by the provider.

We received mixed feedback from people about the way the provider listened to them and responded. People and relatives told us they were aware how to raise any concerns or complaints. One person told us how the service had responded to their concern and resolved the problem. However, other people told us the concerns they had raised about call times had not been addressed.

The registered manager told us they regularly reviewed feedback shared by people and families about the service and any concerns people had. The registered manager had identified the same negative feedback from people that we received and had started to address the concerns.

The provider had a complaint policy and process to manage any complaints. The registered manager kept a log of all complaints made and actions taken in response. Complaints were reviewed to identify any trends, and the senior management team monitored actions to improve the service provided.

People and relatives did not specifically comment on equity in access, but did not raise any concerns.

The registered manager told us staff supported people where needed to access local services.

We asked the local authority for feedback and no concerns were raised about the way the service ensured equity in access for people.

Assessments covering the accessibility of people’s home and whether any adaptations or equipment were needed had been completed. These assessments were reviewed and updated where needed.

People and relatives told us they did not face any discrimination in the support they received from the service.

The registered manager told us they recognised the barriers people living with disabilities may face. People were supported to access services, local communities and healthcare by staff where this was needed. Staff had been supported to complete equality and diversity training.

The provider’s values statement outlined their ethos in striving to ensure people received compassionate care. The assessment process included a check of whether there were any unmet needs for people and signposted them to other services where relevant.

People and relatives told us they had received good support to plan for their future, including any end-of-life care wishes. A relative told us the service had put them in contact with a local hospice service, who had been excellent.

Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example whether people wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they had a ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ plan in place. Staff said they worked with the palliative care team when necessary.

Nobody was receiving end-of-life care at the time of this assessment. The registered manager told us they had provided this type of care in the past and would make sure wishes and needs were recorded.