ivolve Suffolk 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 Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Peoples care was individualised, and care plans reflected their preferences and communication styles. Care plans were detailed, informative and person centred. However, the feedback from relatives about their involvement in care planning was inconsistent with some telling us that they did not feel actively involved in their family members care plan.

Care plans did not contain a lot of detail about people’s goals or aspirations. Daily records did not always evidence that people were active in their community. For example, it was recorded that the staff had offered one person a walk on a number of consecutive days, but they had refused. There was no evidence that alternative opportunities were made available. Elsewhere the plan stated that a relative would receive daily calls but there was no record of these calls being made.

The provider told us that they were planning to introduce a new planning process called STRIVE which would focus more on people’s aspirations.

People’s care records demonstrated the service had worked with other care providers and health services to ensure people received continuity of care.

However, a number of relatives raised concerns about communication and how staff did not always communicate effectively with them and with each other which meant that things were missed or there was duplication which impacted on people being supported. One relative told us, “I'll ask, and they’ll say, ‘oh I wasn’t on yesterday’. ‘Nourish phones not working’. Or ‘Nothing is written down’.”

People’s communication needs were assessed and plans outlined how people communicated. Staff showed a good understanding of people’s varied communication styles, and we saw that information was provided in different formats. Wesaw for example staff using cards with pictures to help one person make choices.

There were systems in place to enable people and relatives to share feedback and ideas as well as raise any complaints. For example, people could scan a bar code and give direct feedback. One relative told us, “I will always confront an issue if I have any. I will ask questions, and I do expect an answer. I will talk to anyone I need to.”

At the assessment the manager told us there was no feedback or recorded complaints from people or their relatives. However, relatives told us that they had raised issues and told us what action had been agreed. It was unclear how this feedback was collated and how it was being used to drive improvement. The provider told us that where people had raised concerns, meetings were held to try to resolve issues

There was some evidence of advocacy being accessed where appropriate.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people as and when it was required. People were provided with 1-1 staff so they could attend health appointments safely and have consultations and outcomes explained to them at a level and pace they understood.

People were supported to access services and healthcare by staff where this was needed. Further efforts were however needed to integrate people into their local communities and ensure that people lead a fulfilling life.

Staff had been supported to complete equality and diversity training and the Oliver McGowan autism training.

National best practice guidance, including the REACH standards which guide providers to the fundamental principles of supported living was not fully implemented at the service. Office staff used peoples home to access water and to use the bathroom which is not in line with the guidance.

Staff told us that the provider treated them fairly and they understood how to treat people equally.

There was no clear plan in place about how to support people in an emergency medical situation. Staff were not aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example whether people wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they had RESPECT documents in place. RESPECT is a national patient-held document for Advance Care Planning and emergency care decisions. The provider told us that staff had been trained in emergency first aid and hospital passports were in place. Hospital passports provide information about people needs to health staff to guide them as to risks and whether any adjustments, such as longer appointments are needed.