AMG Care Services Ltd

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment of the Responsive key question for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service supported people in a person-centred way, care plans and daily notes completed by staff mostly reflected this, care reviews were inclusive and reflected people’s wishes and preferences for support. Staff told us they supported people how they wanted and said, “It’s about putting the person at the centre of what we do”. People and their relatives told us they had the care and support they wanted. One person said, “My personal care included washing and creaming my back, very respectful staff, I have a care plan, which gets updated, the carers do notes on their phones these days.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were encouraged to take responsibility for their own care needs in their own homes. This included arranging their own healthcare appointments. However, when people did not have anyone to help them and could not do this for themselves, staff members supported them in a way which empowered them to maintain their own wellbeing.

The service supplied information in a way that met the person’s needs. The registered manager told us care plans could be provided in different formats for people where required. Assessments reflected how people communicated.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service collected feedback from people in a range of ways. Feedback was gathered on a regular basis. Complaints were recorded in a folder but outcomes from the complaint were not. However, we saw evidence of how the service had responded to one complaint through a care review and discussions with staff. People and their relatives told us their feedback was regularly sought either by phone or in person as part of a care review and said “(Person) has filled out a questionnaire, communication is by phone, (staff member) also does home visits as well as being a lovely person, they are also accessible”.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We viewed feedback from one person about the timing of care calls being too close together, which impacted on the person getting their medication at the right time. Following this feedback the service discussed changing their care calls to align better with their medication. People and their relatives told us staff helped them access services where they could not or found it difficult to communicate. One relative told us “In the office they are very good, very good at sourcing information, helped sort out eye drops when there was a problem and accessed a dementia singing group called Sing for the Mind.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The service had an Equalities policy in place and care plans reflected people’s protected characteristics. Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

Where the service had been able to, they had asked people about their future plans, for example about their end of life. This information was recorded in people’s care plans.