Rivers

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 received care and support which was personalised to them. Comments from staff included, “Everyone is different with different needs. Everyone has their own routines.” And, “I love the way we are person centred and provide person centred care. Each resident has different communication needs and different activities they can participate in.” A professional told us, “Every engagement I have had with the setting has been person centred.”

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. Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. Records viewed evidenced referrals to professionals were made when required. Relatives told us, “[Relative’s] physical needs are met, they are very good sorting out issues associated with learning disabilities and behaviour issues. [Relative] does not change, when they need external help they have done that, for behaviour they got the psychologist in and got a plan put together to mitigate behaviour.” And, “The core things, physical needs, mental needs, nutrition, hygiene, important things, and love and care my [relative] gets. [Relative] is very happy and content there.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Communication care plans provided details of people's communication needs. The service supported people to express their views and offered choices tailored to individual people using a communication method appropriate to that person. Staff told us about the numerous tools they used to communicate with people. Professionals told us, “The service has endeavoured to develop communication packages where bespoke approaches are required. They are also ensuring a universal approach is in place for all staff to ensure an effective level of communication is in place.” And, “Many clients have very complex communication needs, but I have observed staff at the Rivers to maximise the ability of clients to communicate and be involved in their own care in their preferred manner.”

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. Processes were in place to involve people. This included residents and 1-1 meetings. A resident’s forum was held last year which the provider was planning to hold again. Relatives told us their loved ones were involved. A relative told us their loved one was “Forthright and gives their views.” With another stating, “They keep [relative] involved.” Most relatives felt involved, however some felt communication could be improved. We discussed this with the registered manager who was aware of the concern as it had been raised during the service’s recent family survey, with assurances received that they were being addressed. A professional told us, “People’s preferences are often considered, and the Rivers supports people to contribute to their care. People’s ability to make choices is often respected where it is possible to do so. Families are involved wherever possible, and they are very proactive in this.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Reasonable adjustments were in place for people who needed them. This included ensuring the service was fully accessible for people who require wheelchairs, with equipment in place to meet peoples moving and handling needs. This meant people had a positive experience, good outcome and their disability did not prevent them from accessing the support they needed. A professional told us the service would make any adjustments required to meet people’s needs prior to any funding approval if it was needed for the person’s wellbeing.

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. Staff and management advocated on behalf of people to ensure they led a full life. Professionals told us, “They accommodate visits that are made with short notice wherever possible while advocating for the routine of the individual.” And, “It was evident during my visit that the team ‘thought outside the box’ to ensure the needs of the people they support were considered and met. They demonstrated empathy as well as involving a multi-agency approach to ensure positive outcomes and considered the short and long term benefits for the individual I met.”

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. Person centred reviews were being implemented to support people to set goals for the future. A relative told us, “On person centred review’s there are aspirations listed, and we go through them There is a plan in place, for example to help volunteer with animals, then it is followed up.” The provider told us for 1 person hospital radio/ volunteer roles/ construction work courses at college were being explored. At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone at end of life. The service was in the process of supporting people to put end of life plans in place.