Highfield

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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.

People had individual plans of care which gave staff the information they needed to provide safe care to people. These were person-centred and contained detailed information about people’s likes and dislikes and how to support them in a way they wished for.

Staff were committed to delivering personalised care and felt care plans gave them enough guidance. One staff member told us, “Everything we do is based on what people want. It’s their choice. I have had to step out of my comfort zone to drive through the traffic in the middle of Birmingham to get to the Aston Villa football ground because that is what [People’s names] wanted to do.”

Some people had been on recent holidays and others were planning holidays. One person we met during our visit to their home showed us the jumper they were wearing, having purchased this on a recent trip. A staff member told us, “[Person’s name] gave me a thumbs up and a big smile when I fed back that we were going on holiday.” They added, “We have been watching videos on ‘YouTube’ looking at the resort so [people’s names] can think about what they would like to do when we are on holiday.”

The provider was in the process of transitioning from paper-based care plans to a new electronic format. During our inspection, we reviewed both formats. Each contained sufficient detail for staff to give personalised care. However, the new electronic format allowed for a more personalised accessible format for people.

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 worked with psychologists, community nurses and GPs to ensure people received the care and support they needed.

The assistant manager told us staff teams worked closely with the acute liaison nurse. For example, 1 person had required numerous blood tests, and this had been a cause of anxiety. One week prior to their test, the acute liaison nurse worked with this person offering a desensitisation session. This led to reduced anxiety and was so successful the desensitisation session was eventually no longer required. This demonstrated an integrated approach to this person’s care.

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

The provider met the Accessible Information Standard; ensuring important information was made available to people in formats they could access. For example, information about tenancy agreements and how to make a complaint.

Staff shared examples with us about how they used photo story books to aid communication with people. For example, 1 person had been on a trip to Euro Disneyland and wanted to share their memories of this with those close to them. A staff member was helping this person create a photo pictorial memory book which they could then use to aid their communication with others about their trip.

The provider used information produced by other nationally recognised organisations to support people to understand health conditions. For example, a national charity had produced an easy-read pictorial guide about dementia. Staff used this to help people understand what dementia was and how it might change a person’s behaviour.

The provider had further plans to continue to develop individual plans of care with these being more accessible as reported in the above section; Person Centred Care.

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.

During our inspection, we were invited to visit people living in 3 shared supported living homes, and we spent time with, and spoke with, 8 people. All expressed they were happy with their living arrangements and support. Some people were able to tell us more about how they felt listened to and involved in their care. One person told us, “I really enjoy living here and I like the others I live with; they are good company.” People felt involved in their support planning and listened to by staff.

No one had any complaints about their care and support. One person told us, “[Registered manager’s name] comes to visit here and asks how we are; I could tell him if I had any worries.” Another person told us, “[Chief Executive Officer of the provider group] comes and sits here with us and asks how we are, she asks us questions about living here, if we are happy or any concerns. I could tell her if I needed to complain about anything.” Relatives had no complaints about the service.

Systems and processes were in place to gain feedback from people and relatives. The management team analysed this and where improvements were needed, actions were taken.

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

The management and staff team understood the diverse needs of people and delivered care that supported choice. The provider’s services were for people with a learning disability, and / or autistic people and some people had mental health support needs to reduce risks of anxiety. Staff understood people’s needs and worked together to ensure people could access the services they needed.

One staff member told us, “We support people with appointments to the dentist, with physio-therapist and with the GP. If a person needs to see a health care professional, then we make the appointment on their behalf and go with them (whenever needed). The GP knows us and we can ring at any time to ask for advice. After you have been to an appointment you update the electronic records. That way everyone knows what happened and if any needs have changed.”

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.

One staff member gave us an example of when they had advocated for a person to ensure they achieved the best outcomes from a review by an external healthcare professional. They told us, “One person we support is non-verbal and the other person can say some words, but the words used are not always what they are trying to communicate. Staff understand what they are communicating but 1 person seems to be trying more to communicate verbally. I managed to get them some Makaton training at 1 of our day centres and contacted SALT again. They are coming out to do a new assessment which is great.”

The provider had policies on equality and diversity, and the staff team were supported in creating an inclusive culture for colleagues and people.

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.

People were supported to discuss their future wishes if they wanted to. Some people had told staff about their funeral wishes and particular songs or hymns they liked.

The management team and care staff told us that in the event of a person’s health deteriorating they would work with health care professionals with the aim, if the person wished, to provide care in the person’s shared home.