UBU - Harrogate

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 were supported to make informed decisions about their care. They were involved, along with their family or advocate where appropriate, in developing their ‘This Is Me’ assessment and support plan. Support plans were generally very detailed, person-centred and comprehensive. Where we identified any gaps or minor anomalies, the provider ensured these were addressed straightaway. Staff completed clear records of people’s daily care and support, and these records showed that support was delivered in line with each person’s needs and preferences.

Staff had very good knowledge of people’s needs and preferences, which helped ensure people received person-centred care. They were responsive and tailored their support to each person’s needs.

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.

Local managers were aware of relevant sources of support and services which may be of benefit to people. They made appropriate referrals where required, and ensured staff followed any advice given by health professionals or specialists. The provider generally worked well with other professionals to ensure people received holistic support and continuity of care. One professional praised how well staff worked with their local multi-disciplinary team, drawing on the support of different professionals to ensure good continuity of care for someone. Another professional told us, “Staff do reach out to us for support if they need us, in a timely manner” and, “From my understanding staff are following our support and guidance.”

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

People received information about what they could expect from the service in a handbook. This also included helpful contact details and information about people’s rights. The handbook was presented in easy read format. People had a wide range of communication needs, and the provider confirmed information could be made available in different formats according to people’s needs. For instance, we saw that some people had visual aids around their home, and some people used assistive technology to aid communication and information sharing.

The provider was working in line with the Accessible Information Standard. This requires providers to assess, record, flag and meet people’s communication needs, and share information about these communication needs with relevant partners when required. The provider’s assessment of people’s needs included any communication or sensory support requirements. This information was available to staff in the person’s support plan. Staff demonstrated good understanding of people’s preferred means of communicating and how to present information in a way that was meaningful for the person.

A small number of staff and relatives commented that there were occasional language and communication barriers with some staff, but most felt staff communicated and conveyed information effectively.

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 had regular opportunities to share feedback about their care and issues affecting them. Some people engaged in regular meetings with other tenants where they lived, to discuss topics such as social plans and property related issues. Action had been taken as a result of people’s feedback and suggestions, although we noted that sometimes the records of these meetings did not always capture all the action that had been taken. There was also a ‘People’s Voice’ forum, where people got together from different areas. For some people, including people who did not communicate verbally, their experience of care was gathered by different methods, such as observations of care and monitoring people’s responses. People also had individual review meetings, involving relevant stakeholders and relatives where appropriate, to ensure their support package continued to meet their needs. A staff member told us, “Communication is a big thing, we need people to be involved.”

The provider conducted annual satisfaction surveys, to gather feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals. We found survey responses were generally positive, and action had been taken in response to feedback received. Most relatives told us they were satisfied with communication from staff, but some indicated there were occasions where staff could be more consistent in this area. One relative told us, “We have good lines of communication. We’ve established good working relationships with them; we have a frank and friendly relationship.” Whereas another told us, “There have been some communication lapses.”

The provider had a complaints policy and there was a system in place to ensure any complaints were investigated and responded to. People and relatives told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns, and most were very confident these would be quickly acted on.

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

Staff tailored their support to enable people to access any services they required. This included support to attend community facilities and health appointments, where needed. Staff were aware of barriers people could potentially face, due to their health or disability, and they adapted their support accordingly. This included examples where they had worked with external professionals to familiarise people with particular health equipment prior to planned appointments, to help minimise their distress and the need for anti-anxiety medicines.

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.

The provider assessed people’s individual needs, including any protected characteristics under the Equality Act. This information was available to staff in people’s support plans, so they understood how this may impact on the care they provided to people. Staff also completed equality, diversity and inclusion training, to help them understand and respect people’s rights.

Staff provided personalised support to ensure everyone had equitable opportunity to experience positive outcomes, that were meaningful to them. People were supported to participate in opportunities that reflected their individual interests, aspirations and preferences. The provider monitored the outcomes people were working towards, and there was a strong focus on people leading full, enriching lives.

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.

Staff planned with people in terms of the goals they would like to achieve and independence they could potentially develop. People also had opportunity to share and record their wishes about the end stage of their lives, should they wish to. This information was recorded in their support plans.

Staff worked alongside relevant health professionals should anyone require support with end-of-life care. One of the registered managers provided a positive example where they had worked flexibly, in partnership with other services, to ensure they provided compassionate care to someone.