East Anglia Domiciliary Care Branch

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

There was a lack of involvement with people and relatives around the care they received, what they wanted and their experiences. Staff lacked training to be able to fully communicate with people especially when they were non-verbal. Managers and staff acted on what they believed to be the best for people without any consultation or involvement with them which has resulted in people not being treated as individuals. There was a lack of evidence of identifying each person’s self-defined strengths, preferences, aspirations and needs as the basis on which to provide care and support to live an independent live. This resulted in breach of Regulation 9.

This service scored 62 (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.

Although we did not have any direct feedback from people and their relatives in this area we found some people did communicate their needs, emotions and distress, and staff did not always manage this in a positive way that protected their dignity. Positive plans in place used labels and negative language to describe how people expressed themselves. Words such as ‘psychotic behaviour and behaviours of concern’ were common place. Not all plans were created and reviewed by a person trained in such matters to ensure it meet the person’s needs in the best way to support them.

There was sometimes a lack of inclusion for those with communication issues. A number of people were non-verbal but staff had a lack of training to be able to meet their needs. Records gave staff poor or no guidance to direct them and with a high use of agency staff and lack of training this could impact on their ability to have themselves heard by staff.

We found each person who used the service was not always treated as an individual. There was a lack of evidence to show each person’s self-defined strengths, preferences, aspirations and needs were used as a basis on which to provide care and support to live independent lives.

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.