United Response - 66 & 66a Lemsford Road

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 46 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider had identified the need for improvement in care plans. Care plans lacked details in relation to people’s health and social needs. For example, how to support someone with meaningful activities that people may enjoy.

People were supported by the provider to have start to have links with the local health professionals where they needed it. The management team had shared they were starting to look at how people could start to be involved in their local community. At the time of the inspection this was still something that the management team were embedding in the service.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider did not consistently consider the most effective ways to share information with people using the service. Care plans were not accessible or presented in a format that supported individuals to understand or engage with their own support. This limited people's ability to be involved in decisions about their care and reduced opportunities for promoting choice and autonomy.

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 management team had taken steps to respond to complaints and concerns raised, demonstrating a commitment to improving the service. However, there were limited formal opportunities for people using the service to regularly share their views or be actively involved in shaping their care. Strengthening feedback mechanisms would help ensure that care remains person-centred and responsive to individual needs, and that people felt heard and valued when sharing their day-to-day experiences.

People did not always receive support that considered peoples human rights. There were examples where people did not always have access to the care, support and treatment they needed. For example, there was evidence that the provider did not ensure that legal requirements and best practice guidance was in place. In addition, Staff did not ensure that people had the information in an accessible format to keep them informed about their care and what they should expect as part receiving care.

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.

Staff demonstrated efforts to support people, but there were inconsistencies that led to unequal experiences. Some individuals received more personalised communication and support than others. For example, while care plans identified the use of visual aids and Makaton, these were not consistently implemented in practice. On one occasion, we observed a staff member not engaging with a person who was trying to initiate conversation. Strengthening staff awareness and consistency in communication approaches would help ensure that all individuals feel heard, respected, and supported in a way that reflects their personal needs and preferences.

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. Care plans and discussions had not taken place to discuss people’s wishes.