Gloucestershire Community Support Services

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 Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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.

The provider employed dedicated personal behaviour support (PBS) staff and Speech and Language Therapists (SALT). Staff recorded daily notes about people in a respectful and person-centred way. People could personalise their rooms in any way they wished with items which reflected their hobbies and interests; however not all flats were decorated to a high standard and the lighting in some of the flats was very harsh and contributed to a clinical atmosphere. The manager told us relatives were responsible for all aspects of decoration, and relatives were aware of this as it related to the building which was not under the provider’s remit. People were aware of their care plans, but due to people’s complex needs, it was not always evident how they had been involved in reviews. The manager showed us a new document to be used with people and their key workers which included prompts about care plans. The provider recognised their responsibility to support people to achieve goals. For example, one person had recently been supported to overcome a fear of going into a coffee shop and staff had worked with them to identify their triggers and work on ways to overcome their anxiety. This had a positive outcome, and the person achieved their goal. The manager showed us examples of annual person-centred reviews and monthly key worker meetings.

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.

Everyone including relatives thought the care was of a high standard and staff understood the needs of people very well. Care was joined up with other agencies such as those which support people to transfer from children to adult’s services, and local authority teams. Additional in-house services were provided regularly such as PBS and SALT support. The service provided a comprehensive induction for new staff which helped remove and mitigate barriers to people receiving joined up care.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had been given easy-read documents or supported by Makaton as best suited the person. The provider had an accessible information policy and there was information in communal areas for how to raise concerns. However, we found not everyone had information provided in their flats in ways they could understand. For example, there were no easy read care plans. One person had a list of goals for 2024 in their kitchen, but no updated goals. When we asked their key worker, they told us they were planning on doing a new list of goals for 2026. We found people did not have information about which medicines they were taking or if they consented to having CCTV in the communal lounges. We found the provision of good activity planners was inconsistent. The provider was receptive to our feedback and was looking at improving these.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People were not consistently provided with up-to-date written information about the service. We saw evidence the provider had produced a survey for people to give feedback, but no one receiving the regulated activity had completed the survey to date. Meetings with relatives had not happened in accordance with the providers schedule due to a change in the management. We saw the last meeting held was April 2025. We were told relatives were kept up to date with regular email communication; however, relatives told us they preferred the old system which was an electronic chat group. One relative told us, “Communication is not as good now as at the beginning. The old manager had set up a chat group for [relative] with family, managers and senior staff and it was good. But now it’s emails and not so good. The new manager told me they can’t use a chat group as it interferes with staff’s weekends. In the chat group they would send photos, and it felt very welcoming, because it’s like what you do with your family, and you’d see the blue ticks when they’d been read but emails can just get missed.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured people who had a disability which impacted their ability to contact health services or access health, care or wellbeing support were supported to have equitable access to relevant healthcare professionals.

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.

People’s care records reflected things which were important to them, relationships they wanted to maintain, their wishes and backgrounds. Staff used this knowledge to deliver person-centred care in a respectful and inclusive manner. From our observations we saw people were treated equally. Records showed people were not refusing to access the community when offered outings. Training records showed staff completed equality and diversity training.

People were not always 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.

At the time of the inspection, there was no one receiving end of life care; however, the service had not put RESPECT forms in place for people. RESPECT forms are documents which instruct paramedics and other health care professionals about people’s choices whether to seek medical treatment in a hospital or if they prefer to remain in their own home and if they wish to be resuscitated. The manager told us they were starting to put these in place for people.