Master Care

The service was safe. It identified, recorded, mitigated, and managed risks and worked in an open and transparent manner. It used reflective practice to drive improvement when things went wrong or shortfalls were identified. People received safe care at a time previously agreed with them and staff stayed for the agreed amount of time. They received their medicines safely and processes were in place to help protect people from the risks associated with infectious diseases. People told us they felt safe receiving the service and systems were in place to identify, record and report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been safely recruited and trained to perform their roles effectively and competently.

The service was effective. People’s needs had been holistically assessed and the service worked collaboratively with other professionals to ensure care was delivered in a way that achieved positive outcomes for people. People’s consent had been sought and they were supported to access health services to aid their wellbeing.

The service was caring. People were treated as individuals with kindness and respect. Staff worked with compassion and encouraged people to maintain their dignity, promote their independence and were supported to make their own choices. People’s immediate needs were addressed. The culture of the service was caring and supportive and the wellbeing of staff was considered.

The service was responsive. People received individualised care, at a time they chose, that met their needs. They received information at the start of the service, and on an ongoing basis, in formats that were accessible to them. Feedback was sought and acted upon and complaints were taken seriously, investigated, responded to, and used to improve the service. People were made aware of their right to advocates and were included in decisions about their care and support. The service specialised in providing care to people approaching the end of their life and this was delivered with care and compassion and in collaboration with other professionals.

The service was well-led. Whilst we identified some minor shortfalls in record-keeping, this had not negatively impacted on the service people received and the registered manager responded positively to the feedback provided. The service had robust governance systems in place that had been successful in ensuring a consistently good quality service was delivered. People’s feedback was sought on a regular basis and acted upon. The management team led by example and demonstrated expertise and knowledge. They had fostered a positive and supportive culture that made staff feel valued and appreciated. We saw evidence that the service worked well with other professionals.