North Short Term and Urgent Support Team

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 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 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.

People received person centred care. Care plans were specific to people’s needs and identified the support individuals required, what was important to them and the goals they had. People were fully involved and consulted on decisions and reviews of their care.

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 benefitted from a culture of joined up working between health and social care services. Staff and leaders worked together to ensure people received the support and services they needed to help them work towards regaining their independence. Leaders had systems in place to ensure staff were able to work flexibly and innovatively to meet people’s goals and outcomes. One relative told us, “We roughly know when they will be arriving, there is a 2-hour slot for them to come and someone always comes, which is reassuring.”

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

People were given information to meet their communication needs. The provider met the Accessible Information Standard. The provider was able to provide information in alternate languages and different formatting such as large print to ensure people could access information.

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.

People were fully consulted on their experience of their care. The support typically lasted up to 6 weeks and following this period, people were asked for their feedback. This with either verbally or on a feedback form. One relative told us, “We had no reason to contact the office whilst my relative was getting care from this company, but I felt that if I needed to complain I would have been listened to. I would definitely recommend this company and their staff. I must say that we couldn’t have managed without them initially and it is all thanks to the team of carers they have that my relative is at the stage they are. I feel that if they had not been so positive, supportive and encouraging my relative would not have got going again as quickly as they have.” Leaders reviewed each feedback given and used this to ensure any areas of learning was understood and shared with the staff team. People felt listened to and consulted.

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

People benefitted from approaches which embraced innovation and collaboration. Leaders actively worked in close partnership with health partners to ensure people had access to the support, equipment and services they needed. Access criteria and traditional barriers to services were challenged in a professional way to ensure this did not cause a barrier to the person’s ability to regain their independence. For example, one person required a piece of equipment to support their discharge from hospital. Leaders worked with community based health partners to ensure the person received the equipment promptly, which meant the person could be discharged from hospital quickly.

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.

People did not experience discrimination as a result of their protected characteristics. Staff had training in equality and diversity and understood the importance of working without judgement and prejudice.

While the service would not be appropriate for people receiving end of life care, staff and leaders ensured 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 leader told us, “Our service is not suitable for people who is imminently at the end of their life. However, we work with a wide range of people, and we would assess their needs. If it was assessed someone who was nearing the end of their life could regain some skills and independence, we would definitely look to see how we could help.”