Avenues South Hampshire Services

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

This service scored 61 (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 any relevant changes in people’s needs.
We spoke with staff and found they were knowledgeable about people’s individual health care needs. However, they did not always demonstrate they were following people’s care plans and risk assessments when delivering care.
Relatives did not always feel care delivered was person centred. One relative told us, “Some staff should make more effort to engage my [family member] on what is, after all, a one-to-one situation.” Another relative told us, “Some of the staff, I think are lazy, it is supposed to be person centred and sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t.”
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.
The provider did not hold information about healthcare appointments and consultations for all people. This meant there was a lack of joined up care and updated knowledge about people’s needs and treatment. For example, despite the provider administering one person’s medicines, healthcare appointment updates were only provided through family and therefore the provider did not have direct contact or correspondence with this person’s healthcare professionals. There was a risk people’s care would not be delivered in line with their most current needs and risks. This also did not provide assurance people’s clinical needs were kept up to date to ensure safe and effective monitoring.
We also found a lack of evidence to demonstrate input and support from external healthcare professionals. The provider told us the GP was involved in some people’s care. However, there was a lack of evidence people’s individual needs were regularly supported and monitored. For example, for 1 person with diabetes, there was no evidence of regular diabetes health checks and diabetic foot checks being completed.
Relatives did not always think the service and other professionals worked well together to support people, and added, “The company does use agency staff so there is not always consistency.”
One partner told us, “The staff team and managers work with [next of kin] of all the individuals in the services. [Next of kin] are always invited to reviews."

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Relatives did not always feel they, or the person supported, received accurate information which met the person’s communication needs. 1 relative told us, “I have had to fight for many things.” Another relative told us, “There is no office or manager number”, and “Care plan I have no idea; there are posters up about what should happen during the day. [Person] can use Makaton, I am not sure the staff can.” This did not demonstrate information was tailored to people’s individual needs, or that relatives could easily contact the service and management when required for information.
The registered manager told us meetings and reviews were held regularly with relatives to review care plans. Relatives told us verbal feedback was provided about people.
 

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.
We received mixed feedback from relatives about management listening and acting on suggestions. 1 relative told us, “I have to push hard, sometimes.” Another relative said, “The staff challenge the family if family disagree with what is said.” This did not demonstrate care was always integrated and joined up well for people.The provider told us they had systems and processes in place to support engagement with families, including forums, complaint handling and surveys

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We reviewed people’s care records and found they were supported by staff to access the community, healthcare professionals and supported with hobbies or interests. We found people were supported to access day centres and enjoy activities such as swimming.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was tailored in response to this.
The registered manager told us about the positive risk taking they had implemented in the service. We discussed examples where some people had been supported to develop their autonomy in their home and were supported to visit different places and do their own shopping.
 

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 registered manager told us, “We have end of life plans in place. We meet with the parents/who they want to be involved in that meeting. We check if they even want us involved in that planning process. We look at what are their likes and dislikes, what kind of music they like for example, so we make sure their wishes are taken into account.