Leeds Supported Living

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 80 (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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from people and relatives was universally positive about the caring nature of staff. Comments included, “They [staff] are all lovely. They really do care and interact with [name of person]”, and “Staff are 100% lovely.” We visited people in their own homes and observed outstandingly warm and trusting relationships, where people’s privacy and dignity was continually respected. Staff spoke very passionately about their role in supporting people to live full and inclusive lives. Comments included, “We have great relationships. It feels good when we see people on holiday with big smiles on their faces” and “The person is at the centre of their own care; it is their decisions and choices. It is all about them.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were supported by a core staff team to live as individuals. This was embedded in all areas of the service. People were empowered to choose meaningful activities that mattered to them. People told us about a range of holidays and community experiences they had recently enjoyed. Relatives gave us universally positive feedback. Comments included, “They are brilliant and treat [name of person] well. They prompt and fully include in any decision making.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s rights and independence were promoted, and this was reflected in their care records and people’s achievements. We talked to one person who had recently learnt to make hot drinks and saw how they enjoyed making drinks for their friends. Feedback from people and relatives was universally positive. Comments included, “[Name of person’s] views matter. They are non-verbal. [Name of person] makes it known what they like,” and “[Name of person] loves where they are living and has learnt lots. [Name of person] has become more independent and has learnt lots too in a social sense.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and any changes they required in their support. Staff were relaxed and knew people very well. One person’s health needs had recently changed, and the service had increased their level of staff support to ensure they could continue to live safely in their own home. As a result of this we saw their health had started to improve again.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events.

Lessons were learnt to continually identify and enhance good practice. This was strongly embedded into the culture of the service and discussed with staff in team meetings. Risks associated with closed cultures had been identified. People had access to professionals, family and friends outside of the service they could raise concerns about their safety with.Accidents, incidents and near miss events were reported and action was taken to mitigate the risk of events happening again. There was a clear process for raising concerns and complaints.