Creative Support - Hampton Crescent

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 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 were supported to make choices about how and when their care was delivered, and staff respected people’s decisions, including where these involved an element of risk.

Records showed care plans were personalised and reflected what mattered to people, including their routines and preferences.

Reviews of care were completed regularly and demonstrated people and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in shaping and reviewing their support.

People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback about feeling understood and treated as individuals. Comments included, “We have just got a review on what people have put forward and they are listening,” and “They will make a cup of tea and have it with us before they go and discus [person’s] care.”

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 effectively with other professionals and services to make sure people received coordinated and continuous care. Staff liaised with GPs, social workers, district nurses and mental health services to respond to changes in people’s health or wellbeing.

Where people’s needs changed, care packages were reviewed and adjusted to make sure support remained appropriate and timely.

Healthcare professionals shared positive feedback about the service’s communication and responsiveness, which supported continuity and reduced the risk of gaps in care. Comments included, “[Name of registered manager] has always answered my calls and made time to discuss client care and support and has been accommodating to [professional] visits, especially when these are under short notice."

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

People told us staff explained things clearly and took time to check understanding.

Records showed information about care, medicines and risks was documented and discussed with people.

Where people had communication needs, staff adapted their approach and used different formats to support understanding and consent. This helped people feel informed and confident about the support they received.

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.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns or make complaints and felt listened to when they did so.

Feedback was actively sought through conversations, reviews and surveys, and records showed this was used to make improvements. Staff encouraged people to speak up about small issues as well as more significant concerns, which helped maintain positive relationships and responsive care.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to manage complaints and concerns. We reviewed how this was being managed and found it to be appropriate.

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

People were supported to access healthcare appointments, community services and social activities in ways that reflected their individual circumstances.

Staff worked flexibly with other agencies to reduce barriers to access, including for people with complex needs. This helped make sure people could access support fairly and in line with their needs and choices.

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.

Staff supported people to maintain independence, pursue personal goals and reduce social isolation.

Records and examples showed people were supported to overcome barriers, such as managing finances, improving independence with daily living tasks and accessing meaningful activities. People’s feedback and documented outcomes indicated the service focused on strengths and worked to achieve positive, person-centred results for a wide range of 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.

At the time of our assessment, the provider was not caring for anyone who required end of life care. Staff had been trained to provide care to people at the end of their lives. The management team told us which healthcare professionals they would involve, if required.

There was a policy in place that focused on how the service provided compassionate end of life care.