Rebuild 4 Life Ltd

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 provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We saw that people and relatives were involved in planning their care right from the start of the process. A relative said, “[Relative’s] care is planned around what he wants, and he regularly goes out with the staff.”

There were relevant person-centred care policies and staff were committed to keeping people at the centre of their care. Care plans and guidance for staff were written in a person centred and respectful way.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider accepted people into the service via a specific pathway, in conjunction with the person’s court appointed deputy. This was a lengthy process which gave the provider time to find out relevant information about the person they would be supporting, and tailor the support accordingly. The staff worked well with other agencies and professionals at all stages to make sure that care was flexible and supported continuity. A relative told us, “Before the company started, we had a meet and great to do the care plan and I was very impressed with this.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff adapted information to meet the needs and preferences of individuals. For example, electronic methods were used if people found face to face meetings difficult, and communication devices and aids were utilised. The provider used ‘Language Line’ for translation services when required.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a complaints policy and people confirmed they knew how to raise concerns and were confident actions would be taken. We saw evidence that complaints were listened to and addressed in a timely manner. A relative said, “Communication is excellent with the office and if I had any problems, I wouldn’t hesitate to contact the manager.” Another person said, “If I had any concerns or a complaint I would go straight to the manager and discuss them with her. I have never needed to do this.”

The provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider supported people from the start of their care package being set up by the Court of Protection, and then throughout their lives. This meant the service was involved at the planning stages and could make sure housing and equipment was designed to be accessible for when people needed it. Staff advocated on behalf of the people they cared for to help support people to access other services. Managers and staff were aware of digital exclusion for some people and took steps to address this in different ways.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager was aware that some of the people they supported may experience inequality in care outcomes. Consideration was made as to how this could be alleviated, and care was adjusted. Staff were able to find and establish bespoke activities for people that would support their individual needs and preferences.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service was not supporting anyone who was at the end of their lives at the time of the assessment. There was a relevant policy, and staff could access end of life care training if required. Planning for the future was considered in people’s care plans.