Archived: Sitara Haven

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 changed to inadequate.

This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to providing person-centred care.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

There were no effective systems in place to make sure people, and their relatives were involved in developing their care plans. Care plans did not always provide the level of detail to ensure a person-centred approach to people’s care and support any relevant changes in people’s needs. Our observation of care and support people received also did not demonstrate they were receiving person centred care. The language used in care records was not always person-centred, for example, records describing people as being ‘hyper’, rather than considering the need or feeling the person was expressing.

Care plans were reviewed; however, we saw no comments on progress in line with people’s care plan goals. This meant we could not be assured all care plans were appropriate to meet people’s needs. They did not ensure that the desired outcomes were achieved or that they met the expectations of people themselves.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up and supported continuity. For example, people’s care records evidenced they received consistent care across different settings and from different healthcare professionals. This included with their GP and community nursing teams. A record for each person was maintained detailing visits and communication with other professionals.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We found the service was not fully compliant with the Accessible Information Standard, which requires that people’s information and communication needs are identified, recorded, and met in a way that is tailored to them.

Information, for example, food menus were not easy to read; people’s support plans did not have any specific plan such as with the use of pictures to support people’s communication needs. Where a person had difficulties understanding written English, there was limited evidence to show that this has been considered such with the use of pictorial menus and rotas to support them with their communication care needs more effectively.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There were limited opportunities for people to be able to share their views and provide feedback on care. The provider did not have an effective and accessible system in place to record, manage, investigate and monitor complaints and concerns. We did see some feedback surveys had been completed by some people, but this feedback had not been collated or analysed and was not up to date. There was therefore no evidence of action taken in response to the feedback.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care plans were completed by staff in isolation and our findings showed that people were not always cared for according to best practice, legal requirements and quality standards as they are entitled to. The provider could not evidence that people or their relatives had been involved in the care plan and people had been assessed for any reasonable adjustments and any identified actions have been addressed. As a result, decisions were made for people without consulting them and care became less person -centred.

People were supported to attend healthcare professionals such as the dentist, optician and foot specialist as required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. There was a failure to maintain effective oversight and monitoring of the experiences of people with a learning disability and mental health needs.

People’s care plans had not always been developed to meet people’s desired outcomes. The provider did not always understand the importance for people and their well-being to achieve the outcome they wanted. Staff did not always work with people’s strengths to develop strategies to reach their goals, such as supporting them with the challenges they faced when in the community or being more independent in their home.

Notwithstanding the above people did take part in activities to support their independence such as support with cooking meals and laundry.

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 inspection the service was not providing any end-of-life care.The service could work closely with healthcare professionals to make sure they planned for and met people’s needs at the end of their lives.