Listonshiels

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Support plans were highly personalised and showed how staff had worked closely with people to ensure their needs and preferences were clearly recorded. Each person had a Positive emotions, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning Accomplishment (PERMA) plan which outlined what brought them joy, their personal goals, and how staff would support them in achieving these. This ensured people’s lives were enriched with meaning and purpose, and that progress continued through the setting of new goals once previous ones were met. For example, 1 person had achieved numerous goals including participation in a variety of sports, social and community events, visits to their family and voluntary work. For other people goals were smaller but no less important in their achievement. For example, for 1 person this was having their hair and facial hair trimmed and for another it was celebrating their birthday with a picnic and birthday cake in the garden. Good news stories were shared with families and showed staff focused on empowering people to achieve their goals.

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.

Staff understood the diverse needs of people they supported and tailored their support accordingly. The service worked proactively with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people received coordinated care and continuity of support. This included specialist advice, input from the local community learning disabilities team and accessing routine and annual health checks.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had a comprehensive Accessible Information Policy and Procedure. This guided staff in identifying and responding to each person’s communication needs, taking into account each person’s abilities, preferences, and level of understanding. For example, each person had a Guide to Your Support which provided information about the person’s support as well as how to raise complaints and safeguarding processes, all presented in an accessible format tailored to individual needs.

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.

Effective systems were in place to enable people, relatives and professionals to share feedback and raise any concerns. The service had ensured that this was done in a way that was accessible for each individual. For example, the service had worked in collaboration with the SALT team developing tailored satisfaction surveys that accommodated each person’s communication needs, ensuring everyone had a voice. People’s views were sought and listened to in relation to all aspects of their lives and outcomes shared.

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

People were supported to access health and social care services in a timely way. The provider understood potential barriers which some people may face in accessing services. The collaborative approach of the staff team in working with people, their families and health and social care professionals reduced those barriers by facilitating people’s access to services. Where people required reasonable adjustments, these were made to support equal access to care and treatment. This ensured people received the right support at the right time and were not disadvantaged due to disability, communication needs or other protected characteristics.

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.

Staff showed a strong commitment to ensuring every person had equitable opportunities to progress, participate and achieve their goals, regardless of their starting point or level of need.

Staff understood the individual factors that could place people at risk of unequal outcomes, such as communication barriers, sensory needs, past trauma or reduced confidence in decision‑making. They used this knowledge to adapt their approaches, remove obstacles and ensure people received support that was fair, personalised and empowering.

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 promoted a culture where planning for the future was seen as an important part of personalised care. The registered manager was aware people and relatives may be reluctant to discuss end-of-life care as many people using the service were young. However, conversations with people were approached sensitively and respectfully. Staff ensured people’s wishes were clearly documented, even when they preferred not to engage in detailed discussions about end‑of‑life planning.