Wigan 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 Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

Staff had a good understanding of what person-centred care meant. Staff had a good understanding of the people they supported and told us they had time to read the care plans.

The people being supported were central to deciding what activities they engaged in. People’s daily schedules were based around their choices and how they wanted to spend their time. People were supported to express and their achieve goals. We spoke to a member of staff who told us they were directed by the person in making decisions about where they would go and what activities they would engage in on a daily basis. For example, one person liked visiting places or doing activities they hadn’t experienced before.

Staff were able to explain how they enabled people to live as independently as possible. One person was supported to attend regular football matches for his favourite football team. The same person also had 2 voluntary jobs. Regular retreats and holidays were organised by the provider. We saw people had been supported on trips to places such as Blackpool and another person had booked a trip abroad. Staff supported people to go on holiday and experience new adventures and have the opportunity to make friends.

People were supported to attend regular exercise classes and activity classes, whilst trips to the swimming pool were popular with others. The service involved people in facilitating events, a person held craft sessions regularly for others. The same person had recently contributed valuable insights into her lived experience to help support the launch of a new mental health training package for staff.

Although there were some issues with care plans, overall, they were detailed, person centred and clearly described the care, treatment and support needs of the person being supported. Care plans included what a good day and week looked like for people, what qualities were important to them from a staff member and other information including their likes, dislikes, religion and culture. Care plans included information about people’s capacity including making decisions for themselves or best interest discussions when required.

Relatives spoke positively about the service being person centred, and each described how staff supported their loved one in a way which met their individual needs. One relative told us how staff supported a person in attending a petting zoo, attending the Blackpool illuminations and staying over for the night. A different relative explained how another person goes out regularly for lunch and dinner and likes to sit in the communal area of the service with their friends.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider ensured incidents which affected the health, safety and welfare of people were reported internally and to relevant external authorities when required. We reviewed the last 3 incident investigations which the service had completed. We found that incident reports were completed thoroughly and on the day of the incident. These incidents were reported to the CQC and other relevant bodies.

Leaders monitored trends and themes regarding incidents and appropriately investigated them which ensured action was taken to remedy them and prevent further occurrences. Lessons were learned from safety incidents, resulting in changes which improved care for others.

Staff told us they were encouraged to raise concerns and felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding if they did. Learning from incidents was often discussed during handovers or in team meetings.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Leaders had a good knowledge of the Accessible Information Standard. Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

Care plans provided lots of information about how to effectively communicate with the person. In a person’s care plan we reviewed, the communication section detailed the words the person could say with clear explanations of when they may be used and what they meant to them.

Staff communicated with people in numerous ways; each was specific to the person. One person’s care plan stated the person was non – verbal and did not use communication aids and outlined how the person pointed to what they required. A communication dictionary was being produced for this person. Another person had a board in his living room to assist with communication with staff. A staff member told us “I know what [person] needs through nonverbal body language such as their facial expressions, and how [person] expresses themselves generally.”

Written information was also produced in easy read formats when appropriate. This included tenancy agreements and procedures relating to how they could complain.

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.

The service ensured people were able to provide feedback on their care. They held ‘tenant meetings’ for people who used the service. The meeting minutes we received evidenced that people who were in receipt of regulated activity were in attendance and contributed their views.

The service attempted to engage relatives in a ‘family forum’ in July 2024 but family members were unsure of the format and how it would benefit them. Since then, no further ‘family forums’ had taken place. Leaders explained they have good relationships with relatives and friends from being visible at the different locations. Staff members reiterated this and told us they have close working relationships with friends and family and evidently communicate with them about any concerns they may have.

The provider also held ‘voice groups’ which were regional and allowed people from services to connect with leaders and share feedback on their care and support.

The provider had a concerns and complaints policy and procedure in place. People had access to easy read documents on how to complain. The service held a complaints log with details of the complaints and concerns raised and the actions taken. The provider had effective systems which ensured complaints were investigated without delay. Complaints were investigated by service managers who had appropriate training to do so.

Staff were aware of the concerns and complaints procedure and told us they would escalate them to their line manager or registered manager.

Relatives were aware of how to raise concerns or complaints about the service. One relative said, “I would have no hesitation in speaking with [staff member] or a manager if I had concerns” whilst another relative said “I would be more than happy to ring [staff member] if there were any concerns.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff supported people to attend appointments. People and their relatives told us they were supported to access the services they needed. People were supported to access these services through easy read documents if required and involved people’s family or advocates where appropriate. One person was being supported via graded exposure/desensitisation therapy to with the goal of them being able to attend hospital appointments.

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.

The leaders of the service had a good understanding of barriers and obstacles that autistic people and people with learning disabilities faced. They supported people with reasonable adjustments to ensure equality. Managers and staff were trained to be capable and confident in challenging inequalities which impact on people’s experiences.

We observed how people had equal access to the care and support available. People were supported in a way that removed barriers for them. For example, a person in a wheelchair had a fob for their automatic door which allowed them to access their property with ease. People’s flats had been adapted to meet their individual needs such as lowered work tops and wet rooms for people in wheelchairs. In the case studies we received, it was clear how people had benefited from moving to the service, including them attending the gym, being able to go out on trips and engage with their hobbies.

The service worked closely with the learning disabilities team and the partnerships and community team which ensured everyone had access to support. One person had recently got involved with a rugby team.

The service actively campaigned for equal rights. Staff and people had been campaigning for better parliamentary representation for people with learning disabilities and autism. The service also successfully campaigned against local allotments being closed down as they benefited the people using the service. They contacted the local member of Parliament and newspapers at the time and were successful. The ‘Our Voice’ group encouraged people using services to discuss the challenges and inequalities they face to help support them to have better outcomes.

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. However, the recording of goals and aspirations in several of the plans we reviewed needed improvement.

The provider supported people to plan for important life changes, with the involvement of their relatives, where applicable. Most of the end-of-life sections of the care plans we reviewed stated the person’s wishes for their death would be discussed in future reviews. For one person we reviewed, this had been completed, and their wishes had been noted, including wanting to celebrate their passing and agreeing their relatives were to complete the arrangements.

Not all staff were trained in end-of-life care and some of the completion dates for staff who had completed the training were from 2020. Best practice guidance suggests this training should be completed a minimum of every 2 years.

The care planning system used did have a section regarding aspirations and goals for the future which we discovered people had completed or were in the process of completing. The information regarding achievements was difficult to locate and often was within the daily notes. There was not a clear record which listed the goal, how it would be achieved, updates regarding the goal and any obstacles to not achieving it. Due to the lack of a process around this, some goals had not been updated, despite being achieved.