Access for Living

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 service met people’s needs. At our last inspection 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 71 (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 their relatives told us they received personalised care that met their needs and preferences. Comments included, “We are happy with the support. Access for Living have been very flexible which works very well for us.” Staff were positive about how they worked to ensure people received person-centred care. One member of staff told us, “Person-centred care means respecting and responding to the individual needs, and preferences of each person I work with.” There was detailed information in place about people’s preferred routines and preferences in relation to their personal care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Relatives told us people received care from the same regular staff so they received continuity of care. Comments included, “It is really important to us to have consistent staff that know [family member] well. We wouldn’t have it any other way” and “They don’t have a high turnover of staff which provides consistency.”

People were given appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to their needs. The provider was working in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Policies and procedures, support plans and meeting minutes were available in accessible formats. People’s communication needs were assessed and plans put in place with input from speech and language therapists if needed. Staff showed a good understanding of people’s varied communication styles. One member of staff said, “You get to know people and how they communicate. There are communication passports in place but mostly it’s about getting to know people.” Relatives of people were also positive about how staff understood people’s communication style and preferences.

People were listened to and involved in the planning of their care and support. Some people receiving care also took part in the recruitment and selection of staff. The provider also made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. There was a complaints policy in an accessible format to help people understand how to raise a complaint. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns about care. One relative said, “I would speak to [the registered manager] or [the nominated individual] if I had any concerns but so far there have been no problems.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People told us the provider checked in with them and reviewed their needs on a regular basis, and if further support was needed, they would help them to access the necessary care. The provider responded to any change in people’s needs appropriately.

Leaders and staff were aware of the groups of people who were at risk of discrimination and they worked to address any possible barriers. One member of staff told us, “The people we support can be discriminated against due to their learning disability. People can also treat them differently because they have a different way of communicating.” Staff and leaders worked in partnership with local advocacy groups to get a better understanding of the challenges faced by autistic people and people with learning disabilities generally and in the local community. They also worked with people and their advocates to help people claim their rights and challenge decisions about their care provision. One professional told us, “Staff understand people’s individual needs and they are really good at advocating for vulnerable people. They have gone above and beyond in some cases to ensure people’s voice has been heard.”

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. The service supported people to devise end of life plans which contained information about their funeral wishes including any religious and cultural needs they had. Despite generally good principles the process for planning and monitoring long term goals was not very robust. We discussed this with the provider and they have agreed to review their practice in this area.