A & A Services West Midlands

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

Our rating for this key question has improved and responsive is now rated as good. People’s individual needs were understood by staff, including protected characteristics. However, care plans did not always hold information about people’s preferences, around how protected characteristics were considered. Communication needs were met and information was provided in formats people could understand, however despite communication needs being assessed care plans lacked detail on how needs were met. End of life care and future wishes planning was not in place for people.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives told us people received person centred care. One relative told us, “It is person centred. The social worker goes through it with us. First time we have had carers who are friends.”

Leaders said people received person centred care. They described how staff were matched to people to support them effectively. Staff confirmed they were able to support people effectively when matched to support with peoples cultural, religious and language needs. Staff told us they used the information in the electronic care record to guide them.

Some relatives told us how they engaged with other agencies such as talking with social workers about people’s care plans.

The provider told us they liaised with individual social workers when required. Staff were unaware of any engagement with other agencies, they commented this would be done by the management team.

Partners told us they did not commission with the service so did not have to engage with the provider about people’s care. However, one agency told us the provider accommodated visits and accepted their input to make improvements to the service.

Peoples care records showed they received continuity in their care and support from a stable staff team.

Relatives told us the provider ensured people had access to information which was presented in ways people could understand. One relative told us, “We get information. Easy for him to understand."

Leaders told us they were able to provide information in different formats for people and ensured this was available. Staff gave examples of people having information in ways they could understand. One staff member told us, “We explain things to some people in Punjabi as this is their first language.”

Processes were in place to assess people’s communication needs. However, plans did not consistently document the support staff were giving to people to help them understand information. This meant people were at risk of receiving inconsistent care and support.

Relatives told us they understood the providers policy for making a complaint and felt they were able to share information about the service. One relative told us, “I know how to make a complaint. We have filled in surveys, and we feel listened to.”

Leaders told us they had a system in place to investigate complaints. They could give examples of how complaints made about the service had been investigated and responded to. Staff were aware of the complaints system and told us they would ensure any concerns were raised with the management team for a response. Staff were unaware of a learning from complaints process.

Processes were in place to investigate and respond to complaints. A learning process was in place, however there was no process for ensuring this learning was shared with staff. For example, where a complaint had been made about staff this had been investigated but the wider learning had not been shared with the staff team.

Relatives told us people received care which was personal to them and took account of their specific needs including cultural needs associated with meals.

The provider told us they had systems in place to ensure people had accessed support in ways which promoted their rights and considered protected characteristics. Staff confirmed this was the ethos of the support people received, giving examples around peoples care needs relating to communication, meals and religious needs.

Partners told us the provider worked to remove any potential barriers and gave examples of supporting people to access support from staff who could communicate with them in their first language.

Care records did not consistently demonstrate how people were supported to remove barriers to care and support and have their rights protected. Processes did not include details of how people were supported with their protected characteristics.

Relatives told us people received support which catered to people’s needs. One relative told us, “[Person’s name] is catered for by the staff. They accepted the support with no problem. If I support them, they can be discontent.”

Leaders told us staff worked to develop relationships with people and how people’s rights were protected. Staff shared examples of how they supported people as individuals including how they helped people with meeting their religious needs and understood people’s rights to choice and to refuse care.

Care plans did not show how peoples legal and human rights were protected or show the details of how people were supported considering their protected characteristics. There was no guidance for staff on meeting religious needs or cultural needs or information about people consenting to their care. This placed people at risk of receiving inconsistent care and support.

Relatives told us people were not given opportunities to discuss their preferences and wishes for when they came to the end of their life. One person told us, “No end of life discussions or future planning discussions have taken place.”

Leaders confirmed they did not have a system in place to ensure peoples end of life or future wishes were discussed with people. Staff were unaware of what people’s needs and preferences were with regards to future planning.

Processes in place did not support people to make informed choices about their future care and wishes. There was no documented discussions or considerations of future wishes in peoples care plans.