North Supported Living Service

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

Staff always treated people with dignity, kindness and respect. They were compassionate and always had regard to people’s rights. For instance, their right to privacy, to their own decision making. People were actively listened to and their requests acted on.

Staff enabled people to take the lead. One relative said, “The staff do with rather than to – they are very keen for [person] to build their own skills.”

People, their relatives and staff confirmed people received a continuity of care, and that there was no reliance on agency staff. New staff received comprehensive induction and shadowing support to ensure people got to know staff, and vice versa. Staff knew and acted on people’s preferences and individualities. A relative commented, “I feel very happy with all the carers.It’s a lovely team, they’ve stuck with [person] through thick and thin.”

Staff respected people’s individualities and had regard to their personal and cultural needs. These were detailed in care planning and clearly met through an ongoing collaborative approach to care. The provider took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans were person-centred. Staff had a sound knowledge of the things that made people unique and were meaningful to them.

Communication plans for people were clear. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of what people needed through verbal and non-verbal cues. People were able to thrive and make their needs known because staff understood them well and had clear guidance. Staff advocated well when needed for people with external partners and professionals.

The provider promoted positive, independent outcomes for people. Staff supported people to have control over decisions and to understand their rights. For instance, one person had exercised their right to protest regarding a local travel decision they were unhappy with. Staff were proactive and supportive. They supported people to test their own limits. One relative said, “Care planning sets the balance between encouraging him to do what he can in the kitchen, so staff don’t do for him too much.”

Staff understood the importance of relationships and beliefs. They therefore supported people to maintain friendships, relationships, to continue to go to church, to attend discos and other social gatherings.

Staff recognised that independence was different for different people and tailored their approach accordingly.

Care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs and preferences, and these were easily accessible to staff.

Staff ensured there was appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes from care and treatment.

People were listened to and understood; staff minimised the concern and anxiety they faced because they knew how to sensitively support people. Staff had the time to observe and communicate meaningfully with people. One relative said, “Staff bring their own interests and knowledge to [person’s] world – it’s a really good relationship.”

People were consistently happy with how their care was arranged and delivered. One person said, “The staff are lovely, they help me get to where I need to go.”

Rotas were well planned and provided consistency to staff and people who used the service.

Leaders liaised well with external professionals when people’s needs changed and different levels of support may be needed. The provider ensured there were clear systems in place, such as competency checks and reviews, to identify when people’s care arrangements may need reviewing.

The provider supported staff and promoted their wellbeing. They understood the impacts on good, person-centred care, of having a stable staff team.

There were clear and comprehensive induction processes in place, including ample opportunities to shadow experienced staff.

Ongoing training and supervision was well planned, with regular reminders to staff and clear lines of accountability in place. Duties were delegated equitably and staff had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities and develop their career.

One staff member said, “I can’t fault the support. They were very flexible when I needed some time off and they have always been great with training and advice.”