Green 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. The provider was responsive to changes in people’s needs and requirements. Some people were supported to access the community and take part in social, leisure and educational activities. The provider ensured people had information about their care and other services. People were able to give their opinions about care and make complaints. They were listened to and the provider responded appropriately. People’s human rights were respected, and they received equitable care and support. The provider supported people to develop goals and plan for the future, as well as providing kind, caring and safe end of life care when needed. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

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 received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care and making choices. Comments from people using the service and their relatives included, “The staff talk with [person] and not over [them]. They listen to what [they] want’’, “The staff appreciate [person’s] routine and encourage [them] to be independent]’’ and “They go above and beyond. [Person] has flourished, and I feel the agency works with me not against me.’’ The registered manager explained, “We match carers to the needs of people using the service. This helps people to feel comfortable and know the staff understand their traditions and culture.’’ People also told us the agency was responsive and flexible, changing care provision when needed. Comments from people’s relatives included, “The agency have been very responsive, especially during COVID when they bought [person’s] groceries for [them]’’, “When the carers noticed [person] looked [unwell], they called an ambulance’’ and “We have requested a change in the visiting hours and days and the agency have responded to this.’’ There were other examples of how personalised care had helped to improve people’s outcomes.

People were supported to access different services within the community. For some of the younger adults with a learning disability, the agency provided care for several hours each day to access leisure activities including group events where people met and socialised with others, as well as colleges. For some of the older adults, the agency provided companionship, support to access pharmacies and health care appointments. The provider had been proactive in liaising with the local authority and other organisation to access information about activities on offer and determine whether these may be appropriate for people.

People and their relatives told us the agency were good at providing information and communicating with them. They explained they were provided with information about the staff who would be working with them, had copies of their care plan and key procedures. People knew who to speak with if they needed to discuss their care. The provider developed a range of visual aids and resources to support people who did not use words to communicate. These included pictures for people to understand what was happening and to make choices. One relative commented, “[Person] communicates through gestures which the staff understand, but what is really good is they speak [the same language] so they use this to communicate as well.’’

There were suitable procedures for people to make complaints and for these to be investigated and responded to. Everyone we spoke with told us they were familiar with these and were confident issues would be dealt with if they had a concern. We saw the provider had investigated, responded to and learnt from complaints and concerns. The staff ensured they listened to and involved people. The staff team spoke a range of different languages, including Makaton (a type of sign language). This helped make sure people were supported by staff who could communicate effectively with them. The staff created individual resources for people who could not use words to communicate. There had been positive outcomes for people as a result of this. For example, increasing people’s range of activities, independence and ability to make choices. The staff used non-verbal clues, prompts and actions to help support some people who needed guidance. This enabled people to feel safe and understand what was happening. The provider communicated with and involved families to help make sure they felt involved and well informed.

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.

The provider helped ensure people had equity of experience and their human rights were promoted and protected. The staff advocated for some people when liaising with health and social care professionals to help ensure people received services they needed. People who could not use words to communicate were empowered to make choices and have control over their care because the staff found alternative ways to enhance communication. People’s religious and cultural needs were planned for and met. The registered manager explained that staff supporting 1 person had helped them engage with their faith and find time for prayer by sharing this experience with them. This had helped reduce the person’s anxiety. Staff undertook training to understand about equality, diversity and human rights.

People received support with care at the end of their lives when needed. The staff worked closely with palliative care teams and had received relevant training. The management team explained how they had supported 1 person whose health had declined by working with healthcare professionals to adapt their care and carry out additional care tasks to meet the person’s changing needs. In addition, they had looked at ways to ensure the person had emotional support and care was provided in a calm and dignified way. Some younger adults were supported with planning for the future and learning new skills. Care plans considered long-term goals and objectives and staff supported people to work towards these.