TheSignLife Project

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 service. This key question has been rated 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.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to changes in their needs.

Care plans were in place, and relatives were involved in reviews where appropriate. While the beginning sections of some care plans included brief mentions of activities people enjoyed, overall, the plans lacked detail about people’s preferences, routines, and the level of support they required. This limited the ability of staff to deliver care that was truly tailored to the individual. There were further concerns about how people’s voices were represented in care plans. One care plan used both first and third person inconsistently. Given the person’s limited communication ability, sections written in the first person did not appear to reflect their actual voice. Staff confirmed that some goals may have been written by a relative, raising questions about whether the care plan truly reflected the individual’s wishes.

Care plans often used vague terms such as “recently” without specific dates. For example, one risk assessment stated that a person had “recently” received a fire safety visit, but no date or detail of the risks identified was recorded. This lack of clarity made it difficult to track when reviews were due or what actions were required. In the care plans, the daily routine was listed in a bullet-point format, which made it easy to follow, but it did not explain the level or type of support needed or reflect the person’s preferences. This limited guidance could result in inconsistent care and missed opportunities to personalise support.

Whilst care plans were not person-centred, staff appeared to know the people they supported well and could describe their likes and dislikes. Daily notes reflected this, with examples of staff promoting independence and engaging people in meaningful activities.

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.

Staff rotas were planned to maintain consistency, and when this wasn’t possible, people were given the option to wait for their preferred staff member or receive support from someone else. This helped people feel in control of their care and supported continuity. One person told us, “We are happy with staff, we have regular staff who we know… who always arrive on time.” Staff used a WhatsApp group to share information about events in the Deaf community, helping people stay connected and engaged with others who shared similar experiences. Staff told us there were enough team members to meet people’s needs, although varying shift patterns could make things more challenging during periods of sickness or annual leave. Despite this, staff worked together to maintain a consistent and responsive service.

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

People and staff were supported to access information in ways that suited their communication needs. A staff handbook was available in British Sign Language (BSL), and interpreters were used to support with training, translating policies, and attending reviews or meetings. One staff member told us, “Yes, I had access to the policies and contracts. When I was ready, I booked an interpreter to translate.” All staff were fluent in BSL, which meant they could communicate effectively with the people they supported in their first language. If people received communications that caused concern, the provider arranged for an interpreter to visit and explain the information. Interpreter support was also arranged for hospital stays. Staff were also praised for supporting people with communication during medical appointments.

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.

People told us they felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care. Staff explained any changes clearly and made sure people understood how their feedback had influenced the support they received. One relative told us, “I would have no hesitation in contacting [registered manager] if I needed to raise anything.”

The provider had a complaints policy that outlined the steps people could take if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care. A relative we spoke to said they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident they would be taken seriously.

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

A relative told us they would contact the provider if they required support to access any care services to receive treatment when required. Staff supported some people with obtaining their prescriptions if their medication was running low. Interpreters from the service followed up with doctors to ensure relevant BSL or deafblind manual communication interpreters were arranged for doctors appointments. The provider told us they would make sure staff were available to support people to attend medical appointments when required.

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.

Staff had completed Deafblind Manual Communication training, which supported their work with Deafblind service users. The team regularly shared information about Deaf and Deafblind events, via their team WhatsApp group, helping to promote awareness and inclusion. Most staff had completed some form of equality, diversity and inclusion training, although this was not always in date. Staff knew when to raise concerns with the provider and felt confident doing so.

People were not always 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, there was no one currently supported by the service who required end of life care and support. Whilst care plans were in place, there was no future planning detailed in peoples care plans, nor their wishes should they become unwell or require more support. A relative confirmed that no such discussions had taken place with the provider. This limits the service’s ability to plan proactively and respect the individual’s long-term preferences.