St Anne's Community Services - York DCA

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

The provider promoted equality and diversity and supported equity in outcomes. People’s support plans reflected their physical, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Care and support was delivered in line with people’s preferences. People using the service, and those close to them where relevant, were involved in planning their support. Some improvement was needed to clearly demonstrate how people’s views were proactively sought and used to influence changes and improvements to the service. The provider had plans for this and a strategy for engagement.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were satisfied with the care and support they received. They were supported to access the regular activities they enjoyed, including shopping and going out. They also received care and support which enabled them to access other work-related activities and services.

Staff and leaders spoke about work which had taken place to improve support plans and provide person-centred care. They were knowledgeable about people’s preferences and how to deliver care in line with this.

People were supported to access other services and medical appointments where needed. People were also provided with the support they needed to prepare themselves for going out to work-related activities in the community and other services. This supported with continuity of care.

Leaders and staff showed us how they communicated with other services where required, to provide cohesive care. They also told us how they worked with families to support with understanding the person’s needs and deliver continuity of care. Leaders and staff also explained how they were trying to promote consistency of staffing wherever possible, in light of current recruitment challenges, to aid continuity.

No concerns were raised from partners about care provision, integration with other services or continuity of care. One external social care professional provided a positive example of joint working between the provider, family and themselves.

Emergency admission support plans were in place to assist if people needed to access other services. Records were available to show that appropriate referrals had been made to other services and people were supported to attend appointments where appropriate. Advice from professionals was incorporated into people’s support plans. Staff induction and training was relevant to the needs of the people accessing the service, to promote appropriate care provision.

People and relatives were satisfied with the information available from the service. A relative told us, “Carers keep me in the loop, they give me the rotas.” They said they also had plans to meet the new manager. One person using the service described communication from the team as “Very good.”

Leaders told us that the people currently using the service were able to understand the content of their support plans and key information in written format. They described how they would adapt this information into more accessible formats for people, should this be needed.

Systems were in place to ensure people using the domiciliary service were provided with information in the format they needed. The management team described the resources that were available within the organisation for support in relation to accessible information and communication aids. There was also staff training and policies in relation to GDPR and confidentiality of information.

People and relatives felt they were listened to. One person told us, “I just tell them if anything is not right, and they sort things out straight away.” They also told us they were supported to fill in a survey about their views of the service. A relative commented, “If there was something wrong, I would tell them.”

Leaders described having an open-door policy and told us they regularly spoke with people and relatives about their care packages. We discussed with the management team that we had found limited recorded evidence of how people’s feedback was directly used to influence and develop the service. The provider shared a copy of their organisational engagement strategy and their future plans in this area.

There were systems in place to manage complaints and the provider had a complaints policy. Some of the provider’s audits prompted management to include feedback from people using the service and staff. However, the audit examples we viewed did not contain any feedback. Annual feedback surveys were also conducted by the organisation nationally, but it was not possible to determine what specific action had been taken at a local level as a result of these findings. Therefore, although people were satisfied with their care and felt listened to, some improvement was needed to clearly demonstrate how people’s views were proactively sought and used to influence changes and improvements to the service.

People experienced equity of access to the service. Support was also provided flexibly to enable people to access other services when needed. For instance, people could request support at different times to attend events or appointments if needed.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and were able to provide examples of the support people may need to overcome any barriers in accessing other services. This included providing reassurance or emotional support in some cases, or practical support.

Emergency admission support plans were in place to assist people to access other services if needed. Support plans considered people’s needs and what reasonable adjustments may be needed to ensure people had equal access to services, such as any mobility and communication needs.

No-one spoken with had any concerns about discrimination or inequalities in the service provided. People and relatives were happy with the support provided.

Staff and leaders spoke warmly and respectfully about people they supported and were committed to achieving good outcomes for people.

Systems were in place to promote equality and diversity. Staff had received equality and diversity training. The provider completed an Equality Impact Assessment for all policies within the organisation, which ensured that anyone with protected characteristics had been considered and were not disadvantaged by the organisational policies.

No-one currently using the service required support with end-of-life care. People or relatives could share information about future life decisions, should they wish to. The provider retained information about people’s family circles so staff knew who to contact should this be required.

Leaders told us that should someone require support with end-of-life care, their individual needs would be assessed to ensure staff could meet these needs. They confirmed staff would work with other agencies and health professionals as required. The provider had clinical leads within the organisation who would also be available for support or advice.

Staff received awareness training in relation to end-of-life care and there were policies in place should planning for this care be required.