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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained inadequate.

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

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.

We found the principles of Right care, right culture, right support were not being met.

The provider had continued to fail to support staff and provide effective oversight to help them understand how to truly deliver person-centre care in practice. Therefore, we found this failing had impacted on most of our quality statements during this assessment and the provider was unable to demonstrate steps had been taken to meet the principles of Right care, right culture, right support.

We were not assured that people living at the homes had a genuine tenancy. For example, although the landlord and support provider were separately legal entities’ they were operated by the same director. We found during the assessment this meant staff working for the support provider had been involved in landlord related matters. For example, tenancy agreements.

We found there had been no specific training or guidance to help staff develop their understanding of providing a person-centred supported living service in line with best practice guidance. For example, REACH standards for supported living. This meant we were not assured person-centred care had been sufficiently implemented or embedded to deliver the supported living model of care and support.
 

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.

The provider had arrangements in place to support continuity of care, for example, long standing staff members.

Documentation did not consistently demonstrate effective joint working with health and social care services, for example, where people had received assessments from external professionals, this was not always reflected in their care plans and the care they received did not line up with the outcome of these assessments.
 

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

The provider did not adapt documentation in relation to people, into a way that met their communication needs, and many people had not seen their care plans or assessments. We found care plans and other documentation had out of date information in that was no longer relevant to the person.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives in relation to communication. One relative told us there was, “Poor communication”, whilst another told us, “I am kept up to date with any of [persons] needs by text or phone call depending on the situation.”

We found that information about people was not stored securely. Offices were not locked and many lockable cabinets which contained people’s personal and private information were left unlocked, keys accessible by anyone, or had broken locks.
 

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.

During our assessment, some people using the service, and relatives, chose to submit anonymous feedback to us via our website. Due to their anonymity, we cannot be sure if these people or their relative received support with a regulated activity, but one relative told us “When I try and speak to the staff in the main office, it’s just brushed off,” and “It’s not a welcoming environment at all.”

There was little evidence that people or relatives were involved in decisions about care, and feedback on this was mixed. One relative told us, “I used to be involved but have not seen [care plan] for years”, whilst another told us, “Yes, needs are regularly reviewed through attending meetings with any decision making and [person] is involved too.”

We found that the provider hosted meetings for people and their relatives to attend to discuss ideas and share feedback, and some relatives praised the provider for the way they involve them.
 

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

The provider had taken some steps to promote equitable access to care; however, these were not consistently effective in ensuring all people received fair and timely support.

We found that assessments did not always fully consider potential barriers to access, such as communication needs, cognitive ability, cultural background, or reasonable adjustments related to disability.

Information was not consistently provided in formats tailored to individual needs, which may have limited people’s ability to understand and engage with their support.
 

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

There were significant inconsistencies in the quality of care provided, meaning people with similar needs did not always achieve comparable experiences or outcomes. The service failed to identify and address inequalities relating to people’s communication needs, disabilities, or social circumstances, and there was little evidence of reasonable adjustments being made to promote equal participation and independence.

Outcomes were not routinely monitored or analysed to identify disparities, and concerns raised by people or advocates were not always acted upon effectively. As a result, some people experienced poorer outcomes, reduced choice, and limited opportunities to achieve their personal goals, placing them at risk of discrimination and unmet 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.
We found that people were not involved in care planning and desired goals and outcomes across people’s plans were generic and the same across many people’s plans.
We found people had generic end of life plans which contained the same instructions for staff, such as to contact people’s relatives in the event of death, but there was no involvement from people or reflection of people’s wants and wishes.