Archived: Care Support Empower

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.

This is the first inspection of this service. This key question had been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 received person-centred care that was in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff and the management team knew people well and knew how they wanted to be supported. However, some elements of people’s care plans were not person centred in relation to the level of detail about how to support people in certain situations or some of the wording used to describe how people were feeling. Daily records completed by staff did not always fully capture how people were spending their time or how they were feeling. This made it more difficult to see how or if people were being supported in a person-centred way or whether or not they were enjoying how staff were supporting them. The management team acknowledged this was an area that may need some small improvements. They began to update people’s care plans and look into different ways for staff to record how people were being supported during our inspection.

However, most aspects of people’s care plans were individualised and detailed how people wanted to be supported in line with their individual likes and dislikes. It was clear from feedback from people’s relatives and the experiences people were having at the service that staff knew people well and gave them person centred care and support. One person had been supported to fully customise their support package, and this had improved their presence in the local community and given them confidence to be their own person and follow their pastimes. A relative said, ‘‘[Staff] know [family member] well. They know their routines and how they like to be supported but also accommodate any changes on the day and make sure it is all about what [family member] wants to do.’’

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. Staff supported people to get in contact with health professionals if this was necessary. People were supported to be a part of their community and to follow their interests. We were shown evidence of how much people valued and enjoyed these experiences. One person was excited about going to a local pub and club and told us ‘‘pub’’ with a large smile on their face. A relative said, ‘‘[Family member] has a better social life than most other people I know. There is not a day where they are not out and about. I come and take them out at the weekend and [staff] support with this as well.’’

People were supported by a consistent staff team to aid continuity of care. People visibly knew who staff members were and it was clear they had built good relationships with them. Staff told us they did not use unfamiliar staff to support people. A relative said, ‘‘[Family member] has the same carers all the time and they have got to know them really well.’’

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information such as care plans and daily records were not available to people in accessible formats which they understood. People may have benefitted from having some information in formats such as photographs and pictures, however this was not being consistently accommodated. The registered manager had templates to use to do this, however these had not been implemented, and some people had been using the service for an extended period of time. The management team acknowledged this as an area for improvement.

However, staff knew how to support people with different communication needs such as using signs or pictured to help them understand what was happening through the day. Staff took their time when they spoke with people to help make sure they understood what was being spoken with them. Staff knew the specific ways people communicated and what this meant. For example, one person vocalised a certain sound to indicate they were hungry, and staff noticed this immediately so they could support the person to get some food. The management team made sure information such as policies and procedures were available in easy read and accessible formats. One relative said, ‘‘Since using the service [family members] comprehension and communication has come on so much.’’

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people and their relatives in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The management and staff team made sure people, and their relatives were given the opportunity to feed back about their care and support. The management team held meetings with people and relatives to discuss their support and any recent experiences they had which they enjoyed. Staff took time to listen to people as they were being supported throughout the day. One person had been supported to discuss their support every time they tried something new so they could feed back about whether they enjoyed themselves or not. A relative said, ‘‘We are always involved in any discussion about [family member] and are asked how we think things are going regularly.’’

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to contact health professionals such as GP’s or speech and language therapists if this was necessary. They followed professionals’ advice to help make sure people were supported safely. One relative told us, ‘‘Staff know [family member] and would know if they needed any help from anyone else.’’

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People’s outcomes were always positive and consistent meeting the expectations of people and their relatives. Without exception, people had been supported to have positive experiences using the service. Relatives were very complimentary about the difference staff had made to their family members life and how the support they gave had a positive impact for them. People’s outcomes included being supported to use less medicines to feel better when they were upset as staff supported them in other ways. People no longer harmed themselves as much when they were feeling upset or anxious. They had been supported to be healthier and lose weight. Staff had identified people’s interests with them and supported them to follow these as best as possible. We were shown evidence of how much people enjoyed this. All of this meant people were having positive experiences at the service. One relative said, ‘‘[Staff] always take [family member] out and about come rain or shine. They do all sorts of things and [family member] is a changed person as a result.’’ Another relative told us, ‘‘[Family members] day is packed and full now and they are like a flower blossom opening up. The staff team have enabled me to be his relative rather than his relative carer and this means so much to us.’’

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People had not yet been supported to discuss how they wanted to be supported at the end of their lives although plans were in place to do this when necessary. Staff had supported people and their relatives to plan for the future, such as deciding how they wanted to spend their time going forward. A relative said, ‘‘The plan is definitely for [family member] to be supported at the service for as long as possible.’’