Archived: Select Lifestyles Limited

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 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.

Although the provider shared evidence they had involved people in decisions regarding restrictive or decision limiting activities such as locking fridges, or where peoples’ medicines were stored. These decisions were not always available immediately upon request and when they were shared had been completed on the day with the service staff and the person themselves, therefore we could not be assured these systems were consistently in place for all people receiving care at the service.

However, there was evidence in care plans to show the provider had considered some preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff knew people well and what was important to them. People did take part in activities they enjoyed and did not describe being unhappy with the care they received.

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’s relatives told us staff were usually the same and they mostly only changed when there was sickness. For example, one family member said, “[Person] has the same carers most of the time and there are a couple of bank staff who cover illness.”

We found evidence care plans had been regularly reviewed and were up to date with detailed information to suggest people were receiving consistent care.

However, care delivered was not always in line with a supported living model which meant care provided was not always in line with best practice or providing the type of care out lined in the statement of purpose. A statement of purpose is a document that providers submit to CQC at the point of registration (and when any changes occur) that describes what the service does. Following the assessment the provider shared additional actions they had taken to bring the services in line with the supported living model such as removing staff equipment from spare rooms used as offices. Reassurances were provided to confirm the additional rooms were not at any cost to people using the service. For example, the medication room was funded solely by the provider and a decision had been made to keep the room as they believed it was in the best interest of the people using the service.

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

Support plans and key documents were available in easy-read versions, using pictures and symbols. Leaders told us information could be translated into other languages to support people to better understand where English was not their first language.

However, it was not always clear from the information shared with us where best interest meetings had taken place that advocates had been used where needed to ensure people had independent support to understand and contribute to decisions.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Relatives told us they were involved with their relations care, and felt confident to discuss any concerns they had with leaders should they feel the need. A person told us, “There has never been a problem but if there was anything I wasn’t happy about I would speak to the manager”. Another told us, “I get invited to annual care plan reviews and go when I can. I find them useful. I would raise any concerns I had. Everything is okay, I have no concerns.”

The provider had systems in place if people wished to raise concerns or complaints about their care, treatment and support. On reviewing a sample of complaints, we found the provider followed this system, we found investigations had taken place, and escalation routes were explained as part of this process if the person was not satisfied with the outcome.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In particular the provider did not ensure all people who used the service received care in line with the supported living model.

‘Some people in receipt of care did not receive the same care as others living at different addresses. For example, at 1 location we saw some people’s medicines and all people’s monies were stored away from their individual homes in communal storage. This meant some people did not have the same access to their money and medicines as other people. When discussed with the service they were able to share their rationale for these decisions. However, as the provider had not always included people who did not work for the service we could not be assured these decisions were made to meet the person’s or the provider’s needs.

However, systems were in place to ensure people could access care, support and treatment from other agencies when they needed it. People and relatives told us they could access other health professionals as required.

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

As people’s care was not always being delivered in line with the supported living model and different levels of adherence to this model were observed throughout the different locations, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences.

However, people and staff we spoke with did not raise any concerns around mistreatment and did not feel they were treated unequally. Leaders told us staff had access to reasonable adjustments which was provided to support staff where required.

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 confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they confirmed they would consider this as part of the assessment process where appropriate.