Hope Health Kare Limited

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

At the time of the inspection, the service did not provide care or support for anyone with a learning disability or an autistic person. However, we assessed the service using the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance because it is registered as a specialist service for people with a learning disability or an autistic people.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Accidents and incidents were review and analysed to identify learning. The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to for this to be achieved. Concerns were shared quickly and appropriately. The provider had developed care plans and risk assessments for people which were person-centred and which identified how people wanted their care to be delivered. Members of staff were deployed effectively and people had consistent teams of people who supported them. Feedback from people confirmed members of staff were competent to deliver care, however there were some members of staff where their knowledge and skills were not as good as others. The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People's care plans identified their needs and described how care should be delivered to meet identified needs. People confirmed the provider had visited them and reviewed their care plans. Members of staff supported people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were asked about consent to care and support and made aware of their rights.

People told us members of staff were kind, caring, happy, willing and wanted to do their best. The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain their independence and they were given choice and control about the make-up of their care and support teams. When we spoke to people about how staff responded to their immediate needs, there were mixed responses. People told us cultural differences sometimes caused a few problems. Where members of staff knew people, it was easier for them to know how best to deliver people’s care and support.

People’s care plans were person-centred and people were happy with the care and support they received. The provider was flexible and accommodated changes and flexibility to people’s call times. The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. People confirmed the provider supported them to access care and support when they needed it. The provider had copies of people’s ReSPECT forms in their care plans so they knew what to do in the event of a medical emergency. However, we did not see evidence of end-of-life care plans in place or evidence of conversations with people about their end-of-life care wishes.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. The registered manager knew their service and understood the needs of people they supported. The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.