MacIntyre Leicester

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 rated inspection, we rated this key question Outstanding. At this inspection the rating has remained Outstanding. This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

This service scored 96 (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 exceptionally personalised care that was shaped around their individual needs, preferences and aspirations. Staff demonstrated an in‑depth understanding of each person, including their communication styles, routines, protected characteristics and cultural backgrounds and what mattered most to them. We observed highly responsive and flexible approaches to support, with staff adapting activities, environments and daily plans to ensure people experienced meaningful choice and control.

People and relatives consistently told us they felt fully involved in decisions about care, and staff listened carefully and acted on their wishes. Relatives spoke extremely positively about the way staff understood and responded to people’s individual communication needs. One relative told us, “[Person] is non‑verbal but does communicate their needs. If you understand [person], they will be telling you they aren’t ok. They do interpret [person’s] presentation really well and work to help them. They get to know them with other staff and with me, it works well. Staff are so considerate with [person] they are respectful of his home.” Another relative said, “They talk to [person] all the time. They tell them what’s happening and ask if it’s ok each time, they do something. I’m impressed how ingrained person‑centred approaches are in all the staff. Sometimes [person] agrees, sometimes they don’t, and they do everything in [person’s] own time.” These accounts clearly demonstrated how deeply embedded person‑centred practice was within the service, with staff consistently placing people at the heart of every decision and adapting their approach to ensure each person’s voice, preferences and pace guided the support they received.

Care plans were detailed, dynamic and co‑produced, reflecting people’s goals and evolving needs. Staff showed genuine warmth and commitment, enabling people to live fulfilling lives and achieve outcomes that exceeded expectations. This strong, embedded culture of person‑centred practice ensured people consistently experienced care that was dignified, empowering and tailored uniquely to them.

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.

People received care that was well coordinated, consistent and responsive to their changing needs. Staff worked effectively with external professionals and agencies to ensure information was shared appropriately and people experienced smooth transitions between services. Care plans were up to date and reflected current guidance, enabling staff to deliver support in a consistent and person‑centred way. Relatives told us they felt informed and involved, and that communication from the service was reliable and timely. One relative told us they were particularly reassured by the level of communication and joint working, explaining, “They share information between professionals such as the OT (Occupational Therapist) and GP (general practitioner). I do psychology sessions and reviews; they do the more everyday things. But we share information.” This demonstrated a strong commitment to integrated working and ensuring everyone involved in a person’s care had a clear and consistent understanding of their needs.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s routines, preferences and health needs, which helped maintain continuity even when different team members were involved in providing care. We found that the provider had clear systems in place to monitor care delivery and ensure any changes were communicated promptly, contributing to a stable and well‑integrated approach to supporting people.

The provider was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had effective systems in place to meet the Accessible Information Standard, ensuring people received information in formats they could understand. Where appropriate, care planning tools, policies and key documents were available in easy read or other adapted formats, supporting people to make sense of their care and express their views.

People had exceptional access to personalised communication tools, including PECs, visual supports and accessible information. This ensured they were consistently equipped to understand their options and make informed, meaningful choices about their care.

Information about activities, routines and changes to support was shared in formats people recognised and trusted, helping to reduce anxiety and promote predictability

Each person benefited from a high‑quality, detailed communication profile that staff used confidently and consistently. This enabled people to express themselves clearly, stay involved in decisions and shape their support in ways that reflected their preferences.

The provider embedded a truly collaborative approach, involving people’s circles of support at the right moments and presenting information in formats people could genuinely understand. This empowered individuals to take an active, informed role in every stage of their care planning.

We observed staff adapting information to meet people’s individual communication needs, including those with complex communication profiles. This included using visual prompts, objects of reference, simplified language and consistent communication aids to ensure information was meaningful and easy to process. Staff checked people’s understanding sensitively and gave them time to respond in their preferred way, whether through gestures, symbols or vocalisations.

Records showed staff worked with families and specialist teams to ensure communication tools were accurate and up to date. This approach meant people received information in ways that supported their independence, involvement and overall wellbeing.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff consistently demonstrated an exceptional commitment to listening to people and involving them meaningfully in every aspect of their care. They adapted their communication approaches to reflect each person’s unique style, preferences and sensory needs, ensuring everyone—regardless of communication ability could express their views and influence decisions.

We observed staff taking unhurried time to check how people felt, offering choices in highly accessible formats and creating calm, supportive environments where individuals were empowered to express themselves in their own way. For people with complex communication needs, staff used a rich range of tools including personalised communication profiles and predictable routines to maximise understanding and involvement. Staff were highly attuned to subtle changes in people’s body language, behaviour or emotional presentation, adjusting their approach immediately when someone showed signs of uncertainty or discomfort.

People were regularly asked for their views about their daily activities, support plans and any proposed changes to their routines, and staff ensured these conversations happened at a pace and in a manner that respected each person’s autonomy. Families, advocates and those important to people were actively involved when appropriate, ensuring decisions were collaborative, transparent and firmly rooted in the person’s best interests.

Staff completed face‑to‑face, person‑centred reviews with people and their circle of support, using accessible materials to explain options, check understanding and involve people meaningfully in decisions. These regular reviews ensured people remained fully informed, empowered and actively involved in shaping their care and support.

This deeply embedded culture of listening meant people were not only consulted but genuinely empowered to shape their care in ways that reflected what mattered most to them.

The provider had highly effective and inclusive processes to ensure people’s voices influenced the wider development of the service. Regular quality assurance reviews, feedback sessions and involvement forums gave people and their relatives structured opportunities to share their experiences, raise concerns and suggest improvements. Outcomes from these reviews were clearly documented, and the provider demonstrated strong accountability by sharing action plans that detailed how feedback had been used to drive service development.

This culture of continuous listening, co‑production and respect ensured people experienced care that was not only safe and responsive but truly centred around their rights, preferences and aspirations.

The provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service promoted equity in access, ensuring all people, including those with higher or more complex needs, received the same opportunities to engage in activities, healthcare and community life. Staff understood the individual barriers people might face, such as communication differences, mobility needs, sensory sensitivities or anxiety and took practical steps to remove these. We observed staff adapting information, environments and support approaches so people could participate in ways that suited them.

For example, 1 person and their support staff raised concerns that they were unable to safely access their garden. Staff worked with the person to explore solutions and supported them to apply for a grant to have the outdoor space adapted. The provider sourced the grant funding and materials needed to make the garden fully accessible. As a result, the person was able to use and enjoy their outdoor space independently, increasing their wellbeing and widening the meaningful activities available to them.

Records showed that reasonable adjustments were routinely made, such as flexible appointment times to support a person who struggled with timely transitions, tailored communication tools and additional staffing when required. Staff worked closely with families and professionals to ensure no one was excluded from opportunities due to their disability or support needs. This approach meant people experienced fair access to services, activities and decision-making, supporting their wellbeing and inclusion.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced exceptionally personalised and equitable care that consistently promoted positive outcomes. The provider demonstrated a deep commitment to understanding and addressing individual needs, ensuring that no one was disadvantaged because of their background, identity or circumstances.

For example, one person with specific health conditions that affected their ability to transition smoothly and timely between activities was supported by a staff team who were highly knowledgeable, patient and responsive to their needs. We observed staff adapting their day and working hours with considerable flexibility to ensure the person’s preferred routines and meaningful activities were consistently achieved.

Staff told us they were willing to work beyond their scheduled hours when necessary, taking this time back later, to ensure the person could access the support and opportunities that mattered most to them. This approach significantly enhanced the person’s quality of life and demonstrated a strong commitment to equitable outcomes.

Staff had an excellent awareness of the diverse needs of the people they supported and worked proactively to remove barriers to inclusion. The service used highly effective systems to monitor people’s experiences and outcomes, enabling leaders to identify inequalities and respond swiftly. People and relatives told us they felt fully involved in decisions about care and consistently reported that staff treated them with dignity, respect and genuine compassion.

Feedback highlighted that people felt valued as individuals and experienced care that reflected their preferences, culture and aspirations. As a result, people achieved outcomes that exceeded expectations, with many relatives describing significant improvements in people’s independence, wellbeing and overall quality of life. Comments included “[Person has flourished in the service. Staff support their aspirations and goals, Living independently was a big step for them and they have done amazingly, I am so proud of what [person] has achieved.” The strong culture of inclusion and continuous learning ensured that equity remained central to the service’s approach.

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.

Staff supported people to plan for the future in ways that reflected their interests, preferences and developing independence. People were encouraged to explore new activities and consider community‑based opportunities that matched what they enjoyed, helping them build confidence and broaden their experiences. Staff took time to understand what motivated each person and used this insight to plan achievable steps towards longer‑term goals.

For example, one person was being supported to implement a cleaning and maintenance system in their home, designed in a format they could easily understand, to help them develop the skills needed to manage their home independently. Staff created colour coded folders with clear, accessible instructions and worked collaboratively with the person to organise labelled boxes containing the appropriate cleaning materials for each room. This structured, skill based learning approach was developed with the person and their relative, supporting learning, planning and the gradual growth of new skills that could be sustained over time.

This demonstrated staff were proactive in helping people work towards meaningful sustainable goals and build confidence in managing aspects of their future daily life independently.