North Supported Living Service

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 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 ensured people’s goals for independence were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. People worked with the provider, their families and others to ensure care was personalised.

When the service looked to move offices (because the previous office space did not afford people the opportunity to visit), they fully consulted with people who used the service and their families. People and their relatives now regularly visited the offices, which helped build on the bonds between staff and people who used the service.

People played a part in how the service was run, for instance contributing to planning events, and helping organise those events (in one case providing the DJing for an event).

Staff focussed on people’s individual needs and ensured care was specific to them. Records reflected this and were extremely detailed in terms of how staff were to support people with specific tasks.

Care plans had a section entitled ‘dreams’ and these needed to be reviewed to ensure they were aligned to people’s longer-term aspirations. In practice staff did help people achieve a range of long term aspirations, but records needed to plan for this better.

The provider ensured people’s care was joined up. This meant they worked proactively and flexibly with external partners (such as specialist nursing teams). The provider ensured they had the information they needed to support people. Care plans were bespoke and made it clear what staff needed to do where people had specific conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy.

People received consistent care from dependable staff, who received the right training to deliver person centred care. Staff were confident to advocate for people when needed, and to support them pursue their own interests independently where they could.

The provider ensured people were given appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff spoke with people in a way they understood, using verbal and non-verbal communication.

The majority of information was shared by staff who communicated well verbally with people. The provider matched staff well to people they supported. There were house meetings where people lived with others, to help make shared decisions. Where people could express their views with images and/or the internet, staff helped them. The provider acted in line with the Accessible Information Standard to ensure people’s information was accessible to them when the needed it. We observed staff altering their communicative style with different people to best ensure they understood

The provider fully involved people who used the service in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. For instance, consulting them about the office move.

Where two people had made a close friendship the provider listened to their preferences and provided support at times that allowed them to take part in activities together.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There were house meetings and an open, supportive culture in which suggestions were positively responded to and people were encouraged to take a lead with their ideas.

People and relatives were confident they could raise any issues, whether they were positive suggestions or concerns. One relative said, “They are willing to listen. It’s been helpful to understand the regular ongoing contact with the local learning disability team, so we are all up to speed.”

Complaints were rare and were handled appropriately.

People were well supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs, in a way that worked for them.

Staff ensured people had access to the right health and social care services by working openly and approachably with a range of partners.

Care planning was up to date and accurate. This contributed to keeping people safe.

People experienced a consistent, person-centred approach from the service, which helped to ensure an equity of experience. Staff worked hard to ensure other partners involved in people’s health care understood people’s needs, preferences and anxieties. They shared useful information through hospital passports and consistent communication. They worked in partnership with people and, where needed, advocated strongly and consistently for them.

No one was receiving end of life care at the time of inspection. The service supported people who had relatively high levels of independence. People and staff did have close relationships built on mutual trust and people felt able to talk about their longer-term health and care planning.