Michael Batt Foundation Domiciliary 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

The leadership team fully understood their responsibilities in ensuring people received the most appropriate care and treatment that matched their individual needs and made reasonable adjustments where necessary. There was a commitment to ensuring people and their relatives received information and advice about their care which was accurate and up to date. Since our last inspection the registered manager was able to demonstrate the steps, they had taken to ensure people and their relatives were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and supported people’s rights. From speaking with the senior leadership team, it was evident that full consideration had been given to people’s individual circumstances and support needs.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At the last inspection the provider failed to take reasonable and practicable action to ensure people received person centred care. At this assessment the provider had improved. Peoples care plans, daily records and a relative confirmed that people experienced care which reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Where appropriate, people close to them had been included in the care planning process.

The leadership team fully understood their responsibilities in ensuring people received the most appropriate care and treatment that matched their individual needs and make reasonable adjustments where necessary. The operations manager told us, “One thing we learnt from our last inspection is that people receive a good quality of life, and their only way of doing this is by understanding people and their personal preferences”.

We were unable to collect the voice of people using the service for this evidence category. However, we reviewed peoples care records, spoke with partner agencies and a relative who told us, “In general, things are going well and I am building a picture of a capable, well led organisation”. We were satisfied that people were experiencing support from a service that understood their diverse health and social care needs and there was continuity in people’s care and treatment.

The registered manager and operations manager described how people’s care and treatment was now being delivered in a way that met their assessed needs. Records confirmed that support was well coordinated with other healthcare professionals.

We spoke with partner agencies who told us people received co-ordinated and responsive care which matched people’s individual needs. One healthcare professional told us, “I have found them to be very responsive to the client’s needs. They have been able to contact us for support at times when the client’s needs changes or worsens”.

The provider had systems and processes in place to ensure care and support was integrated when people moved between services. For example, people had hospital passports. This is a document people could take with them to healthcare appointments, which contained important information about peoples care and communications needs, including personal details, the type of medication people were taking, and any pre-existing health conditions.

We were unable to collect the voice of people using the service for this evidence category. However, we reviewed peoples care records, and observed staff communicating aspects of peoples care to them and we were satisfied that people were experiencing support from a service that accessible and tailored to people’s individual needs.

The registered manager and provider were committed to ensuring people, and their relatives, received information and advice about their care which was accurate and up to date. Since our last inspection the registered manager was able to demonstrate the steps they had taken to ensure people and their relatives were provided with information that was accessible, safe and secure and supported people’s rights.

The provider had systems in place to monitor how information relating to peoples care and support needs was being delivered to people, relatives and healthcare professionals. This included a daily audit of care records and frequent reviews of feedback received from external professionals.

A relative we spoke with described how they felt listened to and included within a person’s care. They told us, “One of the most obvious things that has changed within the organisation is communication. When there is an issue that needs some clarity they are more than willing to call me and ask my opinion and views on the matter. This has been a welcome change as the sole parent of (person), as historically I have been there for (person) for all of his life and have knowledge of much that a new organisation will not be aware of.”

The registered manager described the actions they had taken to implement systems to capture and record feedback from people about their experiences. The registered manager also recognised that although initial measures had been put in place to communicate important aspects of their care for example, how to raise safeguarding concerns and how to complain. There were still further areas for improvement, by offering a wider range of accessible ways to capture, record and act on people and their relative’s feedback. The registered manager told us, “We have a vison to have people involved at the centre of the service and being involved in shaping the service and recruitment of future staff”.

At our last inspection we found the provider had failed to ensure feedback from people was sought and the quality and safety of the service had not been adequately assessed. At this assessment we found the service had improved. The registered manager had identified priority areas where feedback was needed, which included safeguarding information on how to raise complaints. However, the systems need to be widened to ensure a wider range of accessible options are available for people to feedback on all aspects of their care in a way that matches peoples individual communication and care needs.

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 were unable to collect the voice of people using the service for this evidence category. However, from evidence gathered as part of this assessment, we were satisfied consideration was been given to peoples individual needs.

From speaking with the senior leadership team it was evident that full consideration had been given to peoples individual circumstances and support needs. The registered manager described an incident were a person using the service had faced inequality and how staff challenge this situation appropriately which led to a positive outcome for the person. A staff member we spoke with told us, “I don’t have a problem speaking up for (person), and if I did, I know that (registered manager) and (operations manager) would be there to support me”.

The provider had introduced new systems and taken action following our last inspection to ensure decisions relating to people’s care were underpinned with basic human rights principles. However, although improvements have been, the service still needs to demonstrate it can fully embed and sustain these improvements.

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.