Lizor Care

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 reviewed all 7 of the quality statements for this key question.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us care received was person-centred and there was a flexible approach. If people needed to review the times of their visits, then this was considered and changed where possible.

Staff had a good understanding of person-centred care and the importance of meeting people’s individual needs. One member of staff told us, “Person-centred care means all clients are different. They have different needs, preferences and choices. I respect the choices of people, I don’t assume, I always ask. Preferences and choices may change on a day-to-day basis.”

People told us they had a core group of staff who visited them regularly. One person talked with us about new staff being introduced to them. They said, “I have a team that come round and if there is a new carer they will come with another carer who knows me. This demonstrates a level of in-house training and continuity of care in my opinion.”

Staff knew the importance of providing continuity in care. Staff had time to read people’s care plans and ask any questions prior to visiting people. The manager told us they involved people’s families where appropriate and needed to work together for continuity.

One professional talked with us about how staff had worked closely with them to carry out visits to a person with complex needs. Staff had listened to the person and been able to visit in difficult circumstances. The professional told us, “The customer [person] feels well and safe with support of the carers, [person] is supported mentally and emotionally. [person] feels safe with them, they [staff] work well with everyone.”

Where needed the service was able to join up with other agencies to make sure people had continuity of care. We found in people’s records evidence the service had worked with other care providers to make sure people had the care they needed.

People and relatives had access to their electronic care records. The manager told us people also had paper copies which could be produced in different formats if needed.

The manager told us they would help people read and understand information in various ways. The manager said, “We can print large print if we have customers with vision issues, and we can sit with them and read if needed. We can translate any information and any documents can be translated on a system if there was a language barrier.”

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. We found the provider was meeting the AIS. People’s communication needs were recorded, and provision was made to make sure people had information that was suitable for their needs.

People and relatives knew how to raise any concerns or complaints if needed. One relative told us, “I have not had to make a complaint but if I did, I would speak with [staff] in the office.” People also gave us examples of where they had raised issues and action had been taken in response. For example, one person had raised a concern about not getting a staff rota. They told us they now have a staff rota so they can see which staff are visiting them.

The manager told us they reviewed all complaints and concerns to make sure they were resolved and to identify any patterns. The manager said they were able to identify patterns which helped them take action such as providing staff with more training or guidance.

At our last inspection we found the provider did not have an effective complaints procedure. During this assessment we found there was a complaints policy and procedure available for people which had been reviewed prior to our assessment. The policy set out clear timescales for people to know how long it would take to review their complaint. The provider also signposted people to other organisations who could help if they were not satisfied with the providers response to their complaint. Complaints received had been recorded and investigated. The provider also completed surveys with people and relatives to check how they thought the service was performing. A survey had been completed prior to our assessment. The results had been collated and shared with people and relatives.

People had access to their care plans and care records. If people were not able to access online records staff printed care plans for people to have. People were supported to access local healthcare services where appropriate. People had the support they needed from staff to make sure their needs were being met.

The manager told us people’s needs were recorded in their care plans which included any preferences, choices, cultural and religious needs. The provider made sure staff had training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

Professionals did not share any concerns about this quality statement and told us people had the care they wanted and needed.

The manager tried to match staff with people to make sure people liked their care worker. Where there were differences that could not be resolved different workers were allocated. The manager said, “We pay a lot of attention to culturally making sure people are with staff who are matched, and their personalities matched.”

People told us they had not experienced any discrimination for raising concerns about the service. People were supported by staff to overcome any barriers. For example, staff printed documents off for 1 person to fill in forms to apply for benefits. The person did not have online access which had proved to be a barrier for them.

The manager told us people using the service has found challenges with digital systems. This included their online care planning system and the local medicines ordering system. The manager said they encouraged people to do as much for themselves as possible with staff support. Where people did not have access to digital systems the manager said they could provide help as all staff had access to online services during their visits.

Systems were working to make sure people were referred in a timely way to healthcare professionals such as occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. People had regular care reviews to make sure their visits were meeting their needs and if any other support was needed.

Nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of our assessment. The manager told us they had provided this type of care and would continue to do so if people needed it.

Staff told us they had been trained for end-of-life care and knew where to go for additional resources. One member of staff told us, “I would feel comfortable providing end of life care. All the staff are confident enough to provide this type of care, the training would help them know what to do.”

People had been asked if they wanted to record their wishes and preferences for end-of-life care, however, records we reviewed did not have any details recorded. The manager had identified this and added end of life care planning to their service improvement plan. The manager told us they were planning to do further training with team leaders to review their approach to asking people about their wishes.