Freivan 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff ensured they communicated and shared information with people in a way they could easily understand. Care plans gave a good overview of people's support needs. People were treated fairly and free from the fear of being discriminated against.

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.

People and relative told us they were involved in planning their care and support and were able to share their preferences for how they wished to receive care. People and relative told us they were supported by staff who knew them well. The staff and management team told us that people’s care packages were individually tailored to meet the specific needs of each person. Most staff said they were part of a team that continually provided care and support for just 1 person. Staff said it was beneficial to support the same person on a regular basis, as they could get to know them well and have a true understanding of their wants, needs and preferences. Staff consistently told us they worked hard to make sure people received care and support that was centred around them. A member of staff told us, “Due to my client having complex needs, we give them targets so they can learn how to be more independent.” Staff demonstrated they knew this and described what people enjoyed and what was important to them. There was a handover process in operation to make sure all staff were aware of any changes in people’s needs and wishes.

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. People had access to healthcare services. People’s care plans included information about how people wanted to be supported to attend appointments, such as being escorted by family members. Relatives confirmed they were informed of changes to their relative’s support and of appointments. Care records showed people were supported by health and social care professionals when required. These included social services, housing, community mental health teams and GP’s.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service supported people to express their views and offered choices tailored to individual people using a communication method appropriate to that person. People’s care plans contained information about people’s individual communication needs. Staff told us about communication tools they used to support people to make choices. This included sign language, objects and pictures.

People and their relatives felt confident that any concerns or complaints raised would be taken seriously and acted upon. Comments included, “No complaints and we have phone numbers of the office as well as a social media messaging group with staff and manager. Staff either rings us or message us and asks us about [person] care.”

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people and families in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The service had a complaints policy, however no formal complaints had been received since the last inspection. Staff undertook meetings where people were supported to express their views.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed and when they needed it. The provider and staff understood that people may face inequality in accessing services because of their age and disabilities. They advocated for people to receive the services they required and explored alternative ways people could get the support they needed, such as assessments by occupational therapist (OT) when people could not access their health centre. The provider had purchased a car to support people to more easily access areas of the community. People were encouraged to attend the GP for appointments when they could, enabling them to have the same access as people in the community.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff received training in equality and diversity which gave them an awareness of barriers and discrimination which people living at the home may experience. Staff and management advocated on behalf of people to ensure they led a full life.

Care plans contained detailed information about people’s religious and cultural needs. Staff were aware of people’s diverse religion and cultural needs and wishes and knew how to protect them from discriminatory behaviours and practices.

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. Support focused on people’s quality of life outcomes. People’s outcomes were regularly monitored and reviewed. At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone at end of life.