Independent Living Alternatives

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through a good delivery of care.

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 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.

The registered manager followed the ethos of the service; people were in control of their care, so therefore people received a person-centred care experience. People we spoke with were clear with us that this was their expectation and what was happening in their day-to-day care experience. One person told us, “They [staff] talk to me like a human being.” However, more work was needed to ensure people’s care plans and risk assessments were person centred.

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 approach of the provider and registered manager was people were in control of their care; they had capacity and were motivated to manage their care. People generally managed their own health needs. The registered manager explained to us 1 person had issues with the service they received from a community nursing team. They supported this person to engage with the community nursing team, so their clinical treatment worked for them.

The provider supplied information, but these were not always in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People told us they would contact the office and speak with the registered manager if they had an issue with their care and support. However, there was no routine reference to people’s communication needs within their risk assessments and care plans to demonstrate this need had been explored fully with individuals. Further work was needed here to do this.

The provider gave options for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. But these options were not always consistently and effectively offered.

The provider asked people to complete a yearly feedback form about their care. They also offered people a face-to-face review. However, these reviews were limited in scope, they were not person centred, and if people missed their time for a review, it moved on to the next year, rather than being given a timely review within the year period. This could have a negative impact on some people, especially those with more complex needs who were not always able to advocate for themselves.

People knew how to make a complaint. But the provider’s complaints process did not promote their right to refer to the Local Government Ombudsman if they were unhappy with how their complaint was handled.

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

The provider saw this as the role of the individual to manage. They invited people who used their service to join the provider trustee board to contribute to management of the organisation, which people had joined and were active members of.

leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider gave training to staff about disability rights. People felt in control of this part of their lives. The registered manager had contacted 2 people’s social workers when they felt these people were at risk. However, they did not take timely action when they were not satisfied with the responses. The provider was not actively involved in monitoring this part of people’s lives, which in some circumstances could pose a risk to some people experiencing equality in care. Further work was needed to promote these people’s rights when their needs were changing.

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.

The registered manager and provider did not ask people if they wanted support with this aspect of their lives when receiving care from their staff. No one was approaching the end of their lives. However, further work was needed to ensure this aspect of their lives was considered and if people did not want the provider to play a role here for this to be recorded.