Avida Supported Living

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 service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 day to day decisions about their care, including about what activities they would like to do. People had opportunities to attend local clubs, go out for meals, play snooker, visit local farms and enjoy walking with staff. Staff offered people options, gently encouraged them to make their own decisions, and listened to them.

Care records clearly reflected each person’s individual needs, preferences and wishes. They included information about people’s life history, communication needs, health conditions and cultural requirements. Relatives told us any suggestions they made to personalise care were listened to and acted on. This helped ensure people received care in the way they preferred.

Advice from other health and social care professionals was included in people’s care plans and used to guide staff practice.

Staff told us people’s care plans and risk assessments gave them the information they needed to provide personalised support. For example, staff knew which football teams people supported and made sure they had opportunities to attend matches with friends.

Where people experienced distress or anxiety, there were clear plans in place to promote their wellbeing and help them feel reassured. We saw staff who were caring, attentive and who interacted positively with people.

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 care records set out their health needs in a way which helped staff understand how to respond and support them safely. Staff worked collaboratively with other professionals involved in people’s care, such as GPs, dentists, social workers and behaviour specialists, to ensure support was well‑coordinated. Staff understood what local services were available and used these to help people access the right support at the right time. This contributed to people experiencing positive and timely outcomes.

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

Staff supported people to communicate in ways that were right for them. They used a range of approaches, such as objects of reference to support choice‑making, and provided key information in pictorial and easy read formats. Each person had an individual communication plan describing their preferred and most effective ways of communicating, which helped staff respond consistently to their needs. One relative highlighted how much their family member’s communication skills had increased since receiving care from the service.

Staff gave examples of how they adapted communication methods over time in response to people’s preferences. For instance, 1 person initially used a picture exchange communication system to request items, but later showed they no longer wished to use it. Staff recognised this and introduced alternative methods that better reflected how the person wanted to communicate.

Staff also told us they were prepared to provide information in large print or other accessible formats if people required this in the future. This would ensure people could continue to understand and participate in decisions about their care.

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 told us they felt able to speak to staff if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care. They said staff listened to them and took their views seriously. Relatives told us they had not needed to raise any complaints because they were satisfied with the care their family members received.

There were systems in place to record, review and respond to any complaints or concerns. Senior staff took a proactive approach to learning from feedback. For example, compliments were also reviewed to identify any emerging themes or minor concerns, which were then used to inform and improve staff practice.

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

All staff were committed to treating people fairly and ensuring any support needs linked to their protected characteristics were understood and met. This helped people to lead fulfilled lives and enabled staff to support them to access specialist clinical or wellbeing advice when they needed it.

Staff understood the discrimination and inequalities people using the service could face and took steps to reduce these risks. For example, they supported people who were at risk of marginalisation due to physical health needs, anxiety, or social circumstances.

Staff worked closely with other agencies and advocated on people’s behalf, so they had the best opportunity to make informed choices about their care and daily lives. These included decisions about the care they received and who they lived with. This helped ensure people had fair access to suitable accommodation, care and support.

People’s care records showed staff had considered their protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to promote equity in access to services. This approach helped ensure people received the right support at the right time, in a way that reflected their individual needs and preferences.

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 service was responsive to the needs of people with protected characteristics, ensuring care was personalised and adapted as their needs changed. Staff continuously assessed and reviewed people’s support, identifying when adjustments were required to promote positive outcomes. For example, staff monitored 1 person’s health and wellbeing closely and recognised changes that were contributing to increased anxiety. They acted promptly and worked with relevant health and social care professionals. This had led to improvements in the person’s physical health and a reduction in the medicines they required to manage their anxiety.

People’s individual preferences and goals were recognised and supported, helping to reduce isolation and enhance wellbeing. Staff ensured that people with protected characteristics had opportunities to take part in meaningful activities, including holidays. One relative told us, “[Person’s name] was so excited about this.” Staff were proud of the positive impact this had on people’s quality of life, particularly for those who had not had the opportunity to take a holiday for many years.

People’s cultural and religious needs were identified and respected. Where individuals required specific types of food linked to their culture or faith, staff ensured these needs were understood and met.

People were not always fully 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 had started to gather some information to help to support people to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life. Some of this information was explored with people, their relatives and other health and social care professionals when people’s needs were first assessed. Although people and relatives did not raise any concerns in this area, we found people’s care plans in relation to their future wishes would benefit from further development. This would ensure they consistently reflected people’s individual choices and preferences at this key stage of their lives. Staff had differing levels of experience in end‑of‑life care, but they told us they felt confident senior colleagues would support them to provide good care.

However, people were supported well with other aspects of planning for their future, such as when moving home. Staff ensured people were fully involved and that decisions made in their best interests at short notice were handled sensitively, with relatives appropriately consulted as part of the process.