Inshore Support LTD - Supported Living

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Records did not always provide staff with detailed guidance about people’s person-centred needs. The provider worked in partnership with people and their relatives to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Peoples care records varied in quality across the service. Some were more detailed than others. For example, where people were not able to have a key to their home the rationale for this was not always recorded in some people’s records. Discussions with staff demonstrated they knew the reasons for this. We also found some people’s one-page profiles required additional detail to ensure sufficient information was recorded to enable staff to use it as a quick reference guide such as agency staff or staff who were covering other staff absence. The registered manager was receptive to this feedback and addressing these improvements.

Relatives confirmed they were consulted about any changes in people’s needs, and we saw regular contact was maintained. A relative told us, “The staff and manager maintain regular contact with us so yes I feel involved.”

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.

The provider worked with partner agencies to ensure people had access to services to ensure people’s needs were met. The provider identified any gaps in care provision and escalated this to commissioners where required. For example, if a person’s needs change which could mean they required an increase or decrease in staffing support. The provider worked with other service providers such as schools and day services to ensure effective communication was maintained and information was shared where appropriate to ensure continuity of support was provided.

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

The provider was in the transition of moving from paper to electronic records. Information held electronically was in a written format, and the registered manager acknowledged this was not in a format that some people could access. Action plans were in place to raise this with the software provider. The provider had other key documents such as people’s hospital passports, and positive behaviour plans which were tailored to individual needs.

Relatives confirmed they were always given up to date information about the wellbeing of their relatives. As care records were now electronic the future plans were to enable relatives and advocates to have remote access to peoples care plans.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People who were able to speak to us indicated they felt listened to, involved with their care and knew how to complain. One person said, “If I am unhappy, I say.” Relatives also confirmed they felt able to raise any issues. A relative told us, “I have not yet had a need to raise a concern but if I did, I would go straight to the site manager. I have all the numbers; I know the complaints procedure. I am confident the management will listen and do something quite quickly to sort my issues out.” Where needed some people had an advocate appointed to ensure their voice was heard.

We saw surveys were also sent out to people, relatives, staff and professionals. The results were analysed and any comments used to drive improvements.

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

People had hospital passports in place which supported planning appointments with healthcare professionals or when emergency healthcare was needed. These included people’s individual accessibility requirements such as appointments being at the quieter times or if a separate waiting room would be available. For some people, where attending routine appointments would cause them distress, staff arranged home visits for people.

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

The registered manager was aware of inequalities people supported may face. These inequalities and people’s needs were taken into account when people were supported to go out. Staff supported people to access autism friendly theatre showings and swimming sessions where possible. People were also supported to meet up with their peers. Staff told us in our discussions how they saw their role included advocating for people to ensure they were not discriminated against, and they were valued in the wider community.

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.

Where possible people’s end of life wishes was considered, and this included any cultural considerations. We saw people were at different stages of this journey based on involvement from their relatives or advocates. Where relatives were not ready to discuss such topics, this was respected, and key information was recorded based on people’s current choices and preferences. The provider was not supporting anyone on an end-of-life journey at the time of the inspection.