Selborne Mews

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 75 (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 made 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. Staff were encouraged to provide feedback and suggest new approaches to enable people to be better supported. Any successful strategies were added to care plans to ensure staff knew what worked best for people.

We saw evidence of care being co-produced with people and professionals wherever possible. Staff supported people in pursuing meaningful aspirations, such as gaining qualifications, seeking employment, and building independence in daily living. Care was adapted to respect people’s preferences, such as support from female staff only, and to ensure people’s dignity and safety.

The provider made sure people received coordinated care that promoted continuity and integration across services.

Leaders told us that when people moved in they identified the needs of each individual, matching staff to their individual needs and building a team around the person. For example, staff collaborated with another service to manage a person’s transition and ensure their support was safe and consistent. Where families were less actively involved, staff told us they reached out to share information and involve them in decision-making where appropriate.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Support plans and key documents were available in easy-read versions, using pictures and symbols. The provider told us that information could be translated into other languages to support people to better understand where English was not their first language. Additionally, some staff who spoke additional languages would support people directly in their preferred language. Advocates were used where needed to ensure people had independent support to understand and contribute to decisions.

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. The provider had a complaints policy in place which set out clear guidance on how to respond to complaints. People and their families were aware of how to raise concerns. Staff explained that if a person raised a complaint, this would be logged, investigated, and responded to both verbally and in writing. A copy of the provider’s complaints policy and procedure was shared as part of the process, and escalation routes were explained if the person was not satisfied with the outcome. On reviewing a sample of complaints, we could see that investigations had taken place.

The provider told us they sought feedback from staff and people through various methods, such as suggestion boxes, quality assurance surveys, and anonymous online submissions. Staff told us they spoke with families when concerns were raised, which helped resolve issues collaboratively. People also influenced the running of the service by co-producing activities, such as creating a gym on-site, purchasing a trampoline for someone who enjoyed trampolining, and organising social activities like henna painting.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff completed training to give them the skills they needed to support people, they understood people’s care needs and could describe how they provided the support people needed. Support plans identified people’s needs in order to support them when accessing wider services. For example, 1 care plan identified that a person required an interpreter when they were taking part in formal meetings as English was not their first language and that they would also require support to use things such as the telephone as they would be unable to do this without staff support.

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. Support plans included equality and diversity sections that reinforced people’s rights to make their own choices and take part in everyday risks safely. Staff used these plans to ensure that people were treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their diagnosis or background.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. At the time of this assessment, no one at the service required end-of-life care. However, systems were in place ensure people would receive personalised and equitable support if this became necessary. Leaders told us they would also discuss people’s future wishes if there was a need to do this in the future. Nobody we spoke with was receiving end of life care or had chosen to discuss their future wishes.