Social Care Solutions (Raunds)

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 64 (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.

Leaders and staff understood the principles of person-centred care and how to apply this in practice. Staff were committed to providing the people they were supporting with a person-centred service.

People had been supported to personalise their flats and make them a home. However, in one person’s flat we found written labels had been added to their draws to give direction about where items such as clothing should go. We were told these had been added for the benefit of staff. We found this approach was not in line with the principles of person-centred care. The interim manager agreed to review this and if these were required to support the person’s needs, pictorial labels would be introduced.

We found care plans did not always reflect recent changes to care and support needs and although there was evidence of relatives views being recorded in care plans, it was not evident how people or their relatives had been involved in reviews.

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.

People generally received care and support from a group of the same care staff which enabled continuity. Staff had specific or enhanced training with regards to the people they supported and had a good understanding of people’s health needs. For example, staff had completed training to support a person with Prader-Willi syndrome.

Staff worked closely with relevant health professionals and records showed effective partnership working. A visiting professional told us, “When I visited everything was well kept, staff were knowledgeable and friendly. My appointment had been communicated well, and I was expected.”

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

Since 2016 onwards, all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

The provider had a range of easy-read documents available, including a guide to our service and the lifeways care standards. The Interim Manager told us if people required alterative formats they would source the best option for the individual. Where required, specific training would also be provided. For example, Makaton training had been provided for staff to support people who were not in receipt of a regulated activity and this approach would be taken for anyone new joining the service in receipt of personal care.

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.

The provider had a complaints and compliments policy, and a matrix of complaints and compliments was shared during the assessment, however, we found there was not always evidence of lessons learnt.

We were provided with some evidence of resident meetings taking place that included discussions about what was working well, what wasn’t working well, and if there were any repairs needed in people’s flats.

A satisfaction survey had recently been completed by people using the service. There was no evidence provided to us of how people with communication needs had been supported to complete the survey and understand the responses they were giving.

A relative told us, “I’ve had 1 questionnaire in around 6 years and I don’t know if it got to where it needed to be,” as no guidance had been provided of where this should be sent after it had been completed.

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

Records showed that staff worked with GPs, dentists, opticians, chiropodist and the community team for people with a learning disability to make sure people received care and support when they required it.

The provider had an on-call policy in place so a member of the management team could always be contacted. A staff member told us, “There is always a team leader or manager on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so we can get help and support if 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.

Leaders and staff recognised the barriers people living with a learning disability or autism and other diagnosis people may face and provided staff with relevant training. Staff demonstrated an understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights and staff explained how they ensured people were treated equally and with respect. A staff member said, “I treat everyone as an individual and adapt my support to the situation rather than giving everyone the same support.”

Staff knew how to access people’s information for medical emergencies to promote good outcomes.

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.

People had an advance planning care plans in place that covered deteriorating health, end of life and funeral planning. However, we found a person’s plan did not contain sufficient evidence of how the person had been involved in the decisions relating to their future, including their resuscitation status. For example, the plan states, “[Service user] mother has requested that [service user] does not have one put in place either." We were not provided with any evidence of an MCA or BI decision in relation to this and this was not in line with the Mental Capacity Act.