Access Dignity Care Limited Also known as Access Dignity

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 did not look at all quality statements for Responsive at this assessment. The service was responsive. Although we found areas of concern at this assessment, until we have assessed more quality statements in Responsive the rating for this service remains the same. This rating uses some scores from the previous inspection. People’s care, treatment and support did not always promote equality, remove barriers or delays and protect their rights. People did not always feel empowered.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 was failing to adhere to its own CQC Provider Information Return (PIR) response regarding equity of experience for people. The PIR stated, ‘Access Dignity Care ensure we have robust processes in place to ensure we do not discriminate against any individual with protected characteristics’ and, ‘All service users have a thorough assessment of their needs carried out which supports with designing a person centred care plan tailored to their needs. Their care plan takes in to account their beliefs and values, their goals and visions, their current baseline and what they would like to achieve, and the support required to achieve this, their personal preferences.’ This was not happening in practice from evidence gathered at this assessment. For example, failures in care planning and assessments meant people with additional communication needs such as dementia were not always heard. This did not demonstrate how the provider pro-actively sought out and listened to information about or from people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant care, support and treatment could not always be tailored in response.

From discussion with the management team, further work was still needed to develop how staff actively listened to people, by improving their communication systems and proactively following through on people's comments. The registered manager told us they were committed to doing so, and to empowering staff to develop initiatives in the community.

People were not always able communicate their views about the service in a way which proactively considered their equality characteristics. This impacted on tailored support provision.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.