Voyage (DCA) Doncaster

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 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 treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care and support was person-centred and this was reflected in their care plans and risk assessments. People lived in their own apartments which were decorated according to their personal choices. The provider and members of staff were focussed on supporting and empowering people to develop and live independently. There was no evidence of a closed culture in the service. A member of staff told us, “We support [people] in a person-centred way and encourage them to [engage in] all personal interests, hobbies and doing what they enjoy and like. We are not in this job to take control. We are here to support people to be as independent as possible and ensure they have as much control in their life as possible.”

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 had good links with local health and social care professionals. The provider was involved in regular reviews and multi-disciplinary team meetings about people care and support. The provider understood the needs of people they supported and how to navigate the local health and care systems which ensured consistent outcomes for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. There was a service handbook for people which had been written using easy-read pictures and information. It explained key information about the service and informed people about where they lived and the support available to them. The provider had created an activities handbook as a resource for people and staff. It contained information about local places for visits, shopping, walks, restaurants and pubs. People had regular meetings with their key workers where all aspects of their care and support were discussed.

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 and their families were involved in reviews about their care and support. There was information displayed which provided information to people about how to make a complaint or a compliment. People were engaged in surveys about their satisfaction with the care provided. The provider reviewed any feedback from complaints and compliments to identify learning for the service. When we spent time with people, members of staff told us about one person who had developed and progressed their communication skills from using single words to ask for things to using short 3-word sentences. A family member told us, “[Person] can complain if they are not happy. They know who to speak too. [Members of staff] always listen to [person]. [Person] moans at me on the phone and I say go and tell the staff then [person] tells them.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to attend health and care appointments. The provider checked in with people and reviewed their needs on a regular basis, and if further support was needed, they would help them to access the necessary care. The provider responded to any change in people’s needs appropriately.

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. People received person-centred care which promoted their dignity, privacy and human rights. Staff recognised and responded to changes in individual’s needs. People had active involvement in choosing and partaking in meaningful activities. People had personalised care plans along with their personal goals and aspirations. We saw examples where people were supported to achieve these goals and aspirations. For example, 1 person wanted more independence and ‘alone time’ and they were being supported to achieve this goal through discussions with their staff support team. The person was now able to walk to the local shops independently and spend more time alone in their apartment. Their support team was on hand if they experienced any challenges or if they wanted any specific help.

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. The provider focused on building trust and bonds with the people they supported. They have worked to understand each individual and support then in a person-centred way to feel safe and comfortable. The people who lived in the service were aged between 20 and 40 and they were working hard to become independent in a community setting and re-gain skills they had lost over the years. The provider had considered end-of-life discussions with people they supported and the provider recognised people needed to be fully prepared for these types of conversations to mitigate any impact on their emotional health and well-being. Conversations had taken place with people’s families about end-of-life care and they have agreed they will speak with provider when they are more comfortable to do so. The provider had the appropriate policies and processes in place around end-of life care. At the time of the inspection, no one using the service was receiving end-of- life care.