Salisbury Support 4 Autism

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 service 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 made sure people received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. Relatives confirmed this. Their comments included, “They cater for [person’s] needs and understand [them] well’ and “Care is very personalised.”

Each month, staff reviewed people’s individual needs and how these were being met. They helped people to review and plan objectives. Care plans and reviews were holistic and included people’s views and wishes.

The provider supported people to integrate into the local community. People attended colleges, day centres, leisure places and were supported to develop relationships with others outside of the service. One professional told us, “I believe the placement do well at offering choice and opportunity for community integration for the residents. Certainly, they have been able to work well under difficult circumstances and sometimes with extremely challenging situations.”

Relatives told us they were happy people were supported within the wider community as well as being part of a community within the different care services managed by the provider. Their comments included, “Staff take [person] out to do their own shopping”, “[Person] goes to shops, into London and [they do] lots of activities” and “The staff organise parties, take [person] for drives, help [them] attend appointments and offer the right amount of variation and stimulation.”

The provider made sure information was clear and accessible for everyone. Some people did not use words to communicate. The staff were trained to communicate with people using signs, symbols, photographs and objects of reference. Staff used individual communication techniques with each person to help present information and support people to make choices. Care plans, information about the service and information about staff were available in easy to read and pictorial formats.

Relatives told us they were given information about the service and people’s care. Their comments included, “I have enough information about the service, including regular catch ups with the manager” and “[Person] has anxiety. The staff support [them] by giving information in advance in the form of social stories.”

A member of staff told us, “We use visual aids, lots of pictures, sign language(Makaton) and people have their own signs and ways of communicating, like taking your hand and showing you or taking you to what they want.”

The provider involved and listened to people. People were supported to plan for and review their own care. They also took part in group meetings to discuss the service and express their views. The provider asked people and their representatives to complete surveys about their experiences. Managers regularly met with people to ask them about their care and for their views. Comments from relatives included, “[Person] is able to speak up and staff listen” and “[Person’s] choices are at the heart of everything [staff] do.”

Relatives told us they were consulted and felt able to speak up when they wanted. They told us they knew who the managers were, and they felt listened to. Their comments included, “If I ring, they always get straight back to me” and “They are definitely responsive to my views.”

There was an appropriate complaints procedure, and people were familiar with this. Relatives told us they felt concerns were appropriately addressed. Records showed complaints had been investigated and learnt from.

The provider promoted equity in access. Staff and managers told us they worked together to find creative ways to overcome barriers to people accessing services. They did this by providing good information for people, assessed risks on an individual basis and communicated with external partners to make sure people received good levels of support when accessing services outside of their homes.

Staff supported people to access the internet safely by providing guidance, information and assessing risks. The staff had supported 1 person to create a CV (curriculum vitae – a document detailing experiences and skills) to help them access employment.

The provider had policies and procedures to help protect people’s human rights and make sure their equality and diversity needs were met. Care plans and assessments included information about people’s diverse needs. People were supported to understand about different faiths, cultures and lifestyles. The staff helped people celebrate these and participate in a range of events. One relative explained, “[Person] is into everything and is curious about different religions and cultures and attends different festivals. The staff support all the service users in their beliefs.’’ At the time of our assessment, the service was celebrating autism awareness month.

The provider helped people to plan for the future. For example, planning personal objectives and outcomes. They helped people develop skills with the aim of becoming more independent in the future. Some people had been supported to move to more independent settings. Staff monitored people’s outcomes by recording what worked well and what needed to change in the future. They gave us examples of people’s long-term goals and how they were working towards these.

No one was being cared for at the end of their lives at the time of our assessment. People were younger adults and not living with life limiting conditions. The staff had close relationships with people’s families and information about their legal representatives. This meant they knew who to consult if plans needed to be implemented following a decline in a person’s health.