hcs Supported Living

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 83 (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 always made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by thoroughly assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s needs were assessed in detail and we saw evidence they, and their families, were involved in developing and reviewing their care plans. Hospital passports and key information required in an emergency were clearly identified in people’s care records. Communication guidelines and methods were included in people’s care plans. One person, whose first language was not English and who was primarily non-verbal, had developed their own language and communication sounds. Members of their support team had learned their communication language and there was a detailed guide in their care plan which enabled people to understand and communicate with the person effectively and meet their needs. The recording of people’s needs and preferences reflected their cultural preferences. For example, one person’s culture was to eat a religiously appropriate diet and to use their hands. There was extensive information about this in their care plan with details about which foods were culturally and religiously acceptable and which were not.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice including CQC’s ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. People’s care and support plans contained information about their personal likes and dislikes. People told us about their involvement in review meetings. One person said, "I go into my [review] meeting and things get changed." Another person told us, "Yes, [I am involved in] everything."

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Members of staff attended regular handover and team meetings where information and updates about people were shared and discussed to ensure continuity and consistency of care and support. For example, information about upcoming appointments and social activities people had planned were discussed and members of staff were allocated to support people.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were encouraged to make healthier lifestyle choices and they were supported to eat more healthily whilst maintaining choice and control. People were supported to access local health and care services including dental appointments. One person told us, "I went to the dentist 2 days ago." People’s health and care needs were reviewed regularly, When we asked people about their access to health and care services, 1 person said, “Yes, [the staff team] help me with it all. Since moving in I have been to the opticians and I need to wear glasses.” We saw evidence people attended reviews with clinical specialists.

The provider monitored all people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they fully met both care and support outcomes and the expectations of people themselves. People's care and support was monitored regularly and they accessed clinical and medication reviews meetings appropriately. Regular multi-disciplinary team meetings took place where outcomes for people were monitored and reviewed. We saw clear evidence of the improvements and growth people had made whilst receiving support from the service. For example, 1 person had completed their level 2 certificate in food hygiene and were increasingly independent in life skills. With support, the person had embraced activities such as shopping for their own clothes and confidently attending a large event with 500 participants. In the first 6 months of receiving support from the service, a person had ignited a personal passion for cooking and baking. At a recent community event, the person eagerly volunteered to sell their baked goods and donated all the proceeds to a local mental health charity. The person worked closely with their support team and collaborated with them to create a plan for the stall, including designing a menu, estimating how many cakes to make, budgeting for ingredients and managing the stall's setup and operation. This person was previously held back by anxiety but now embraced opportunities that reflected their newfound confidence that came from support from the staff team.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Easy read documents were used to support people to give informed consent for care and support. People's capacity to make decisions was reviewed and recorded appropriately. Where people did not have the capacity to make decisions, the Court of Protection made decisions which were in people’s best interest. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Care plans reflected people’s preferences and choices. Where people lacked the mental capacity to give consent, appropriate best interest decisions were made in line with the MCA, involving people’s family members or representatives where needed.