Creative Support - Morecambe Service

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 service 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 service 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 and their relatives were involved in their care planning where required. One relative told us, “We have regular meetings with the house manager and [to discuss person’s care].”

Staff told us about how they provided person-centred care, and we generally observed this to be the case. One staff member told us, “You have to do things in their way, go with what they want and their mind. I think about how I would like to be supported and have choices and that’s always in my mind.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of the people they support, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff and leaders had a good understanding of their service user group and community provision.

Where people required increased support due to an increase in their needs, the service put the necessary staffing arrangements in place while waiting for commissioners to review their support requirements.

Staff often worked across services to ensure there were no shortages or gaps in rotas. They wanted people to get to know the staff, and for the staff to have a good understanding of people’s needs in each home. This resulted in less reliance on agency staff and provided people with a continuity of care.

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

Staff knew and met people’s communication needs and provided information in appropriate formats.

We observed staff communicating with people using their communication preferences. Information about community events and activities was displayed in people’s homes. Meal planning was also displayed in appropriate and accessible formats.

The service appropriately shared people’s individual communication needs with others when this was needed.

Staff had received data protection and information governance training and understood data protection requirements. Information was collected and shared appropriately and legally by staff.

While people were involved in tenant’s meetings to have their say about how their home was running, the views of people who communicated non-verbally were not always recorded. We discussed with the service how they could better direct communication resources to enable everybody to have their say.

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.

Although we received some negative feedback about how the service manages and responds to complaints, feedback was mostly positive. One person told us, “[A member of the management team] comes to all the [tenant’s meetings]. I can speak up about anything that’s bothering me.” Another relative told us, “I wouldn’t hesitate if I needed to make a complaint. I have never had to make a complaint and if anything happens, we tackle it at the time. Staff are very well tuned to [person] and listen carefully.” Another relative told us, “It is a professional service. If I have any reservations, I talk to the house manager. Responses are instantaneous.”

There was an up-to-date complaints policy in place.

Staff involved people and their relatives, where needed, in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. One relative told us, “We are always involved. We have a communications diary which tells me what [person] has been up to at the house, and I put my comments in too. It comes home with them one afternoon a week.” Another relative told us, “We have regular meetings with the house manager and [to discuss person’s care].”

People had access to advocacy services when needed.
 

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

Although we received some negative feedback from 1 professional about the timeliness of a referral for additional specialist support, we found the service generally advocated for and supported people to access support when required.

Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure people could access their premises. For example, where people used a wheelchair to mobilise, there was a lift available to access communal areas. Mobility aids and specialist equipment was made available to people where required.

People had access to 24-hour support from staff and management could be contacted when needed.
 

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 took action to prevent or minimise the inequality in experience or outcomes for people. One staff member told us they were supporting one person to access online content safely and another person around personal relationships.

Staff had received training in equality, diversity and inclusion and other training relating to anti discriminatory practice.

People had access to cars and had Blue Badges where required to ensure they were able to access the community freely. A Blue Badgeallows people with learning disabilities or severe mobility difficulties to park closer to their destinations, providing greater access to services and activities.

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.

One person told us, “I want to go to [holiday destination] and have a budget and a plan so I can save up.” Regarding the holiday planning, one staff member told us, “[Person] has all of the information and will make their own informed decision. I can help to make sure they aware of all of the ramifications.”

Staff supported people around their end-of-life preferences. We saw examples of end-of-life care plans which had been developed by district nurses. Where people had recently died, staff supported their housemates with their grief. One person told us, “It means a lot to see photos of [person] and to remember them.”