Vogue Future Living Limited

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

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 legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and consent.

This service scored 36 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans did not reflect all of their needs, and some people’s needs were not always being met. People were not involved in the planning of their care, and we were not assured that people’s care would change to reflect changing need, as there was a lack of oversight within the services.

People were not supported to be involved in decision making, and often decisions were made without their involvement or the proper processes around mental capacity being completed. There was a lack of evidence that people were working towards long term goals, and some people’s care appeared to be designed around the wants and wishes of their relatives, rather than themselves.

There was a reliance on staff to build knowledge of people individually, and how they would like their care, and staff had good knowledge of people using the service, but this wasn’t embedded into care plans or assessments.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care provision was not consistent across the service, often due to the lack of details and guidance in care plans. Staff showed commitment to person-centred approaches, but this was not embedded across the service for continuity.

There was room for improvement to ensure that care was well coordinated and regularly reviewed so the provider could adapt to people’s changing needs and preferences.

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

The provider had some documents available for people, that were in an easy-read format, however this wasn’t tailored to individual’s needs, and there was no other evidence of information being provided in a way that met people’s communication needs.

Staff did not receive General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) training, this was introduced during our assessment. CQC only look at people’s care, who are in receipt of a regulated activity, during assessments. During this assessment, we were shared information, including risk assessments and care plans, for people who do not receive a personal care, and we were not at liberty to see.

The provider had communication passports in place, however they did not contain much, if any information about people’s communication needs. For example, one person uses a pictorial toilet card to indicate when they need to use the toilet, but this was not included in relevant documentation or guidance for staff and professionals.

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.

The provider had recently implemented social nights, based at one of their supported living services. These social nights were open to anyone using their services, and for people using related day services. We found that people living at the service were not impacted by this, but they had not been involved in the planning of this, including the decision to use their home as a social night venue.

When meetings were had in relation to people and their care, the person themselves was not always facilitated to be included. For example, one person communicated with picture cards and social stories, however, these were not used and therefore meetings were in a format they would not understand.

The provider facilitated regular relatives’ evenings, where relatives could come and share views, raise concerns or ask questions. We found that concerns or suggestions were documented and shared by managers to the provider, but often these were not acted on.

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

Not everyone had the same experiences of having their immediate needs met, and people were not supported to access services they needed to, for example, Speech and Language Therapy (SALT). This meant people’s communication and nutritional needs were not always being met.

The premises was not accessible for everyone, and one person was unable to safely exit or return from their flat. Although this was ultimately the responsibility of the landlord, the provider had not implemented interim actions to ensure they could safely support the person to access all of the premises where they lived, including the garden.

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.

The provider did not consistently ensure that all people receive equitable care or support tailored to them. There was limited evidence of proactive approaches to address disparities in outcomes for people with physical disabilities and mobility needs.

Care plans and assessments did not accurately reflect people’s needs which could lead to inconsistent experiences, and there was a lack of monitoring from managers and leaders to identify and respond to inequalities.

People’s voices were not always heard in a meaningful way due to the lack of support around their communication needs.

People were not 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.

People were not supported to plan for the future, and there was a lack of documented long-term goals. In addition, there was no evidence people were supported to work towards short, or long-term goals.

Many people using the service, and their relatives, had not wanted to have discussions about end-of-life care, or preparation for this. One person who did have a plan in place around the end of their life, did not have their wants and wishes included in this. The plan was based around staff’s responsibility to get medical advice or contact authorities if it was required.