Exclusive Care Services

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 a breach of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care. People did not always receive person centred care and their feedback to the service was not always prioritised. People’s human rights had not been upheld as they had been subject to abuse.

This service scored 7 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The people we spoke with expressed concerns with how their care was delivered and our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. People did not receive care in a person-centred way. There had been a number of complaints made to the provider from people and their relatives. For example, one person had made a complaint that staff were not interacting with them. Another person had made a complaint staff were not caring. Other complaints included staff lack of communication. The provider and registered manager failed to investigate and take relevant action to ensure people received the support they required.

During a staff meeting it was raised that people had complained of staff ignoring them. The staff meeting minutes stated ‘losing clients will affect the hours offered to staff.’ The staff meeting minutes went on to state service users at the end of their lives, were the highest volume of clients that had decided to leave the service. The provider failed to take action and ensure people were supported by kind and compassionate staff. People’s care plans lacked information on people’s individual likes and their needs. Care plans we reviewed were generic and not person centred. For example, 1 person has cerebral palsy. There was no information within their care plan detailing how this affected them, and any support they needed in relation this. The person’s care plans was not always clear on what they could do for themselves and what they needed support with.

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

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

The people and relatives we spoke with expressed concerns with how care was delivered, and our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. People's packages of care were often terminated when they raised concerns about the care they were provided. One relative shared concerns their family member with dementia did not receive the support they needed due to staffs lack of understanding of dementia. Staff failed to communicate with the person, explaining that they were there to support them with their meal, and left because the person was confused about what time of day it was.

The registered manager and provider did not always proactively seek out ways to address barriers to improve people’s experience. People who communicated through Makaton were disadvantaged, and there was a risk staff would not be able to understand their needs. For example, some people’s care plans identified they used Makaton, however staff had not been trained in Makaton, and there was not always information within care plans to describe the signs people used.

Systems to support people to ensure they received equity in their experience and outcomes were not always effective. People’s feedback was not always prioritised. For examples when concerns about staff conduct were raised, the registered managers response prioritised scheduling, and not the person’s feedback that they did not want the staff member to return. People’s human rights had not been upheld as they had been subject to abuse.

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.