Galilee Care

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s care and treatment not being provided in a person-centred way. Information around people’s life history and what was important to them was not included in their care plans.

This service scored 25 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. We found people’s care plans lacked information about people’s life histories or the reasons why they required support from the service. People did not always benefit from staff who had time to get to know them. People told us staff were rushed and often did not chat with them.

There was no joined up approach to care by the staff that were working at the service. Staff were not always completing the daily care notes with detail of what care had been given. This is particularly important if staff attending the call needed to be aware of any concerns from the previous visit. Relatives fed back concerns about the continuity of care and stated often their loved ones would have 5 different sets of carers a week. People and relatives stated their call times would vary from day to day meaning planning anything outside of the care call was difficult. One relative told us, “There is a lot of variability on call times and how long staff stay for which varies every day as visits take place every 3-4 hours, meaning sometimes [person] has lunch as early as 11:00.”

The provider did not provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and relatives told us they did not have access to their care plans or care notes. Relatives also stated they had no way of knowing whether care staff had attended their family members care calls when their family was unable to recall if this had taken place. One relative told us, “I couldn’t even tell you when the carers turn up. I have never been informed of anything. I kind of settled into it, who am to complain? You just have to grit your teeth and get on with it.”

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. People and relatives told us that when they make complaints or concerns, sufficient action was not taken to address this. Comments included, “I have [complained], they did listen, but it didn’t change” and “I don’t even know who the manager is to complain.” We saw complaints were recorded but sufficient action was not taken by the leadership team to address these. There had been multiple complaints about the lateness of calls and conduct of staff however insufficient action had been taken to address this.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The staff did not always have information about the diverse health and care needs of people as there was limited information in the care plans. There had been no prioritisation of the monitoring of care calls for people that would be unable to alert staff (due to their cognitive impairment) should a carer not arrive at a call.

People’s human rights were not always upheld as they were not benefitting from knowing who was going to attend their care call, they did not know when the call was going to take place, and staff did not always stay for the full length of the call. Although staff had received training in equality and diversity, we found staff were not always treating people as individuals.

People were not always supported with their end-of-life care planning. We were aware there were people using the service that were near the end of their life. There was no information in their care plans on discussions with them and their relatives on their wants and wishes.