Leeds Supported Living

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was a clear assessment process completed prior to people moving into their new home. Each house had a service profile, called “Find my housemate,” to ensure compatibility between people was carefully considered, prior to any referrals being accepted. This was used to support an effective transition and inform care plans and risk assessments. Relatives spoke positively about their experiences of the transition process. Comments included, “The transition to here went very well. [Name of person] had a trial run and then virtually stayed.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service supported people in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice including CQC’s ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. Care records provided evidence to show good practise guidance was followed. Where monitoring was required, staff maintained clear records. For example, where people were losing weight close monitoring was in place, and access from other health professionals was sought when this was required.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

There was evidence of strong team working within the service and with external partners. This was embedded across the service. There were effective links with families and other health and social care professionals. People and relatives told us about examples of good communication and teamwork. Staff felt included, supported and valued. Comments included, “The team here is good, they are so compassionate and empathetic. Everyone works together to give people their best lives. They are all really motivated and uplifting.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Processes were in place to ensure people had access to health and social care specialists and their advice and guidance was used to inform people’s care plans. Records showed involvement from professionals, including GP’s, social workers, occupational therapists and speech and language teams. Staff promoted healthier lifestyle options whilst retaining people’s choice and control. Comments included, “We try to offer healthy food choices, such as five portions of fruit and/or vegetables per day. People are able to choose sweet foods, but we also try to offer healthier options too.” People and relatives confirmed they felt well supported with their health needs. People were involved in a range of community activities, which maximized their independence.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Processes were in place to show people’s care and support was monitored. Staff introduced new ideas to people to enhance their quality of life, such as new activities, work and education opportunities. People and relatives told us about examples where improvements had been made, which enhanced people’s health, improvement and growth.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Processes were in place to assess people’s capacity. Where people lacked capacity assessments were in place in relation to making decisions in people’s best interests, which fully involved their circles of support. We found examples where some processes had not been fully followed. For example, one person had bedrails in place. This had been risk assessed but there had not been a full best interest assessment. We discussed this with the provider, and they took action to address this.

We received positive feedback from people and relatives about the support they received from staff and management teams. People were routinely offered choice and control over how they wanted to live their lives. Relatives confirmed this. Comments included, “They ask [name of person] if he wants to go here or there. They include [name of person] and I was surprised at what they can do and their understanding” and “I choose what I like to do.”