CSL Spilsby

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 newly registered 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 they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Most people and relatives told us they were involved in reviews of their care organised by the social worker. However, some relatives reported this was not consistent and communication about changes or responding to concerns was not always timely or effective.

Care delivery was personalised, reflecting each person’s preferences. One person said, “I like the people here, I like having individual time with staff. I also like going to my athletics. I like running at athletics.” Staff demonstrated compassion and respect, upholding people’s dignity and involving them in decisions about their care. However, while person-centred approaches were evident in practice, staff lacked awareness of key statutory and best practice frameworks, particularly the CQC’sRight Support, Right Care, Right Cultureguidance. This gap in understanding limited the sustainability of person-led care and highlighted the need for further training to embed these principles into everyday practice. Care plans used generic guidance or language that could be seen as negative. For example, repetitive sentences and using terms such as ‘toileting’, ‘behaviours of concern’ and ‘challenging behaviour’. This did not ensure clear guidance or respectful, language was used that valued people as equals.

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. Services were well-integrated, with effective coordination across different providers and settings. People experienced smooth transitions between services and continuity of support, which contributed positively to their overall experience of care. Staff worked collaboratively to ensure that care was not fragmented, and that individuals received consistent support across their care journey.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was shared clearly, accessibly, and in a timely manner with people and their relatives. People were happy with the information they received. Internal teams produced easy read social stories to help people understand difficult or new situations. Staff were aware of various ways they could communicate with people who struggled to use words.

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. People’s feedback was sought to inform service improvements. One relative told us, “Communication is very good. They will ring me and email me and do include me.” Another relative told us, “I feel comfortable to raise concerns and go straight in and talk to staff. They respect me but they have to respect what [my family member] wants as well.” Staff demonstrated a commitment to listening and responding to people’s views.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Equitable access to care was promoted, ensuring that people received support regardless of their background or circumstances. Staff were proactive in identifying and addressing barriers to access, helping to ensure that care was inclusive and responsive to diverse needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality of experiences or outcomes. Health outcomes and experiences were monitored effectively, enabling timely follow-up and adjustments to care plans. This approach supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing and ensured that care remained responsive to changing needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of outcome-focused care.

People were given the opportunity 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. Future health planning was discussed with people and where people felt comfortable, their preferences were recorded. This supported a proactive approach to care. However, staff were not familiar with theLeDeR(Learning from Deaths Review) programme, which is vital for improving future health outcomes for people with learning disabilities.