Legacy Agency Limited

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

We looked at all the key questions in this domain. People received person centred care. People were supported to access care in ways that met their personal needs and preferences.

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.

Relatives told us there were care plans in place and this was followed. Comments included, "[Person] has a file care plan and they [staff] access the App to record what is needed."

Staff told us they knew people well and how to provide care that met their needs and preferences.

Relatives told us staff respected their loved ones choices and followed the care plans in place.

Staff and the registered manager knew people's needs well.

Partners did not raise concerns.

Care was provided in a person centred way. Needs were assessed and preferences recorded in care plans. In our review of people's care records we found this was being followed.

Relatives did not raise any concerns in relation to how staff communicated with people.

The registered manager and staff knew how to communicate well with people.

Information given to people was adapted to their particular communication needs and preferences. The registered manager told us and we reviewed evidence showing how the provider had developed with a person a communication book to support their choices and communication with staff.

Relatives were positive about the interactions and relationships established between staff and their loved ones.

The registered manager knew how to deal with complaints.

There was a complaints policy in place. No complaints had been made since the service had been registered.

Relatives told us their loved ones accessed the care they needed.

The registered manager told us relatives were mainly in contact with healthcare professionals such as GPs and district nurses, as this was people's preference, but they knew how to contact them if needed.

We did not receive any concerns from partners in this area.

In our conversations with relatives, staff and the registered manager, we did not receive concerns in relation to people using the service being discriminated against or not having access to the care they required.

Relatives told us receiving care had a positive impact on their lives and all told us they would recommend the service. Their comments included, "They are like family and show the level of personal care they would show to their own family. I would recommend them 100%. In fact, I am trying to convince me [relative] to change for his relative."

Staff knew who to treat people with respect and equity.

People were provided with person centred care that was planned around their needs. The service had an electronic care plan system which provided a summary of people's needs and that was accessible to staff on their phones/safe app. There was also a detailed care plan file in the office that staff signed to say they had read and updates were provided when required. There was a small group of staff delivering care at the time of this inspection (only 3 people receiving care) and the registered manager was actively involved in providing care. We discussed with the registered manager the risks of this system if/when the service increased the number of people they were supporting.

Relatives were involved in the care planned and the reviews of care. No one was in receipt of end of life care.

The registered manager knew they could contact other healthcare professionals if people required end of life care.

The service was not caring for people who required end of life care. However, people's end of life care wishes were assessed and planned for, as much as people wanted this to be put in place.