Nationwide Supporting Accommodation

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 support choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

One person’s care plan was detailed and recorded their individual needs and preferences. It provided a clear summary of the person’s history and relationships, including what was working well, the challenges they faced and what was important to them. Our observation and feedback from the person reflected some aspects of their care plan.

There were clear instructions for staff about the specific ways the person wanted to be supported and cared for, and staff were familiar with these.

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.

For 1 person, staff ensured their care and support was coordinated effectively, working with other services to respond to their changing needs. They did this by supporting them in health and care reviews where possible. Staff also liaised with the local authority and other community teams when reviewing the person’s needs and escalating concerns. This joined-up approach supported continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. They considered people's abilities and preferences when providing information and explored alternative methods of ensuring it was accessible and understood where needed. For example, the registered manager told us information could be provided in a larger font where required.

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

Staff told us people were able to express their views, feelings and any concerns during regular key working sessions. However, 1 person had not had a formal one-to-one session with their key worker for several months. Staff told us they interacted with the person regularly, although these interactions had not been recorded. The person told us they did not recall making any complaints recently. Following the assessment, the provider resumed arranging key working sessions with the person and provided evidence.

There was a clear process for recording, investigating and responding to complaints.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to access health and care services in as required. They respected people’s choices and acknowledged their individual needs.

Staff provided care and support to people in accordance with their assessed needs, including their cultural, physical and mental health needs. Staff also supported people to access community-based services and leisure activities. Our evidence showed staff supporting a person with mobility challenges to participate in a community-based activity they enjoyed, promoting equitable access and inclusion.

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

Staff described how they supported people in a way that promoted their independence, dignity and individual choices. They were alert to any discrimination and ensured people were treated fairly. They achieved this by listening to people, monitoring their progress and liaising with relatives and relevant healthcare professionals.

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. At the time of the assessment, the service was not providing end-of-life care, and the registered manager told us they were not planning to provide this type of care in the near future. However, staff explored a person’s goals and any concerns they had about their future, and documented these in their care plan. This demonstrated how the provider worked with the person to plan for future events.