SignHealth Longley Road

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 86 (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 making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received highly personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs, preferences, and communication styles. Care planning was co-produced with each person, ensuring their views were fully represented and that support reflected their unique personalities and goals.

Residents were actively involved in writing and reviewing their own care plans. Staff provided information in accessible formats, offering both paper and digital versions so people could review and approve the content. People were encouraged to make changes, add goals, and confirm whether plans accurately reflected their preferences before they were finalised.

Care plans were written in plain, accessible language and supported by pictorial and visual symbols, helping people to understand them easily. For example, one individual’s plan included simplified language and symbols related to personal interests, and was adapted to their preferred way of signing, using finger spelling rather than standard BSL. This attention to individual communication needs ensured each plan was meaningful and easy to engage with.

Care plans were treated as live documents that evolved alongside people’s needs. They covered all aspects of daily living including health, emotional wellbeing, community engagement, relationships, and aspirations and were updated promptly when changes occurred. Each plan included defined outcomes, regular review dates, and clear actions to help people achieve their personal goals.

People were encouraged to record their own activities and achievements within their plans, supporting both independence and reflection. Staff described the process as collaborative and ongoing, with updates shared in team meetings to ensure that all staff worked consistently.

Relatives confirmed that their feedback was welcomed and acted upon, and professionals told us that care plans “reflect the whole person, not just their support needs.”

The provider had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service demonstrated exceptional commitment to coordinating and delivering care in partnership with other professionals and community services. There was an embedded culture of collaboration to ensure people received consistent, high-quality support that reflected their communication needs and promoted continuity.

Where professionals lacked deaf awareness, the service took a proactive role in bridging communication gaps. Staff invited social workers and other professionals to meetings, provided interpreters, and shared information about deaf culture and communication preferences. Managers described how this approach not only supported better outcomes for residents but also raised awareness among professionals across the wider system.

The team maintained strong relationships with health and social care professionals, including specialist deaf mental health teams, community psychiatric nurses, and social workers. Staff worked closely with professionals who had known residents for several years, enabling a shared understanding of what was typical or concerning for each person. This long-term collaboration helped to identify changes in need quickly and respond effectively.

Partnerships extended to primary and community health services. The provider had developed positive links with local GPs, pharmacists, and a specialist dentist experienced in supporting deaf people and those with autism. This strong working relationship meant that one resident, who had previously required full support to attend appointments, could now visit the dentist independently.

Staff also worked with opticians to improve accessibility, helping to identify services that could provide interpreters. This commitment to accessibility and consistency of care reflected a deep understanding of the barriers Deaf people often face in mainstream health services.

Collaboration with the Deaf Adult Community Service (DACS) and community psychiatric nurses ensured seamless continuity as people transitioned from specialist to community support. Staff continued to liaise with previous care teams to maintain oversight and share updates.

The provider encouraged family involvement at every stage. Relatives were invited to meetings and asked for feedback about the care provided. One family member told us they felt “included, listened to, and confident that their views were taken seriously.”

One professional told us that “Their (Signhealth Longley Road) culture of open communication, professional partnership, and advocacy went far beyond standard expectations. It ensured people received consistent, safe, and well-coordinated care across all settings.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had a deeply embedded culture of accessibility and inclusion. People’s communication and information needs were met in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Because the service provided care and support for people who are Deaf and use British Sign Language (BSL), every aspect of communication was designed to ensure understanding, equality, and participation.

The provider’s policy was to employ staff who were either Deaf or fluent in BSL. This ensured that people were consistently supported by staff who could communicate directly, without barriers. Staff demonstrated strong awareness of Deaf culture and the diversity of communication styles within the Deaf community.

The registered manager showed us the systems in place to support both staff and residents to communicate effectively. For example, text-based communication tools were used where phone calls were not suitable, enabling staff and professionals to exchange updates quickly and inclusively. Visual alarms, on-screen alerts, and written communication were used consistently across the service to maintain accessibility.

Care plans and key information were presented in pictorial formats and plain English to support easy understanding. People confirmed they were able to review, question, and contribute to their care information confidently.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Communication records showed that people and professionals who contacted the service were responded to promptly. Staff documented calls received via interpreters and followed up with written confirmation by email to ensure information was clear and recorded accurately. The provider also maintained logs of compliments and complaints to monitor patterns and learning.

Resident meetings were held regularly and conducted in British Sign Language (BSL), with additional visual aids used to ensure inclusion. People were supported to share their ideas about activities, meals, and daily routines. People told us they were involved in day-to-day discussions about their care and support. They said staff listened to them and respected their decisions. Relatives also confirmed they were kept informed and could contribute to care reviews and updates. When people requested changes to their support, these were clearly documented, and staff explained how adjustments would be made.

The service had a well-established culture of listening and learning from the views of people, relatives, and professionals. People were actively encouraged to express their opinions about the care and support they received, and their feedback was used to shape ongoing improvements.

Residents and their families were invited to contribute through regular meetings, surveys, and questionnaires. Feedback from these was collated and analysed, and the registered manager developed action plans to address any areas identified for improvement. Staff confirmed that learning from feedback was discussed openly at team meetings to ensure changes were embedded in practice.

Professionals and relatives described the management team as approachable, communicative, and responsive. Feedback included comments such as, “They take feedback seriously and act on it quickly,” and “You always know your views are valued here.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was committed to ensuring that everyone had equal access to care, community life, and meaningful activities. Support was adapted to meet individual communication needs, routines, and preferences, removing barriers to participation.

Staff recognised that equity meant tailoring support to each person. For example, when one person struggled to engage in the mornings, their schedule was adjusted to start later, leading to calmer and more positive outcomes.

People were supported to access education, leisure, and community opportunities such as college, swimming, and local events. Activities were planned collaboratively through one-to-one sessions and residents’ meetings.

Cultural and religious inclusion was embedded in daily practice. Staff supported people to shop in culturally specific stores, observe faith practices, and celebrate important festivals.

The provider also promoted deaf awareness within the community, helping local professionals and services to be more accessible.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service promoted fairness, inclusion, and respect in every aspect of its care delivery. People were treated equally and supported to live meaningful, fulfilling lives, regardless of their background, communication style, or level of need.

Staff were fluent in British Sign Language (BSL) and highly attuned to the communication challenges Deaf people may face. This ensured that everyone could express themselves confidently, take part in decisions, and experience the same opportunities for growth and enjoyment.

People were supported to achieve positive outcomes in areas that mattered to them, such as education, leisure, relationships, and independent living skills. Staff adapted their approach to each individual, promoting confidence and independence through consistent encouragement and tailored support.

Health and social care professionals consistently praised the service’s inclusive ethos. A professional said, “The staff are professional, attentive, and willing to work collaboratively to respond to people’s changing needs,” while another added, “They are excellent at treating each person as an individual, ensuring equality in every area of support.”

Relatives also expressed confidence in the fairness and quality of care provided. One relative commented, “They do a brilliant job.”

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service demonstrated an open and sensitive approach to planning for people’s future and end-of-life care. Conversations about death and dying were handled with care, dignity, and respect, allowing people to express their wishes clearly and without fear.

All residents had end-of-life plans in place. Some had independently purchased their own funeral arrangements, and staff supported them to record their preferences in detail. These discussions covered personal choices such as clothing, music, and preferred settings, as well as family wishes where appropriate. Although staff recognised that music or ceremonies might not be meaningful for everyone, they ensured that family perspectives were noted sensitively.

People were encouraged to create end-of-life books, presented in pictorial and accessible formats. These books included each person’s faith, whether they wished to make a will, who was important to them, preferred place of care, funeral preferences, and where they wished their belongings to go. Records confirmed that people were involved throughout the process and that their wishes were reviewed periodically.

The provider also recognised the emotional impact these discussions could have on staff. Following end-of-life planning sessions, supervision and counselling were made available to help staff reflect and process the conversations appropriately.