Aura Supported Living Ltd Also known as Head Office

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 that 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 63 (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 discussed people's health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them and sought to ensure support was tailored to their individual circumstances. However, care plans did not always clearly evidence people's assessed needs or provide sufficient detail to support consistent care delivery.

For example, one person's care plan stated their dietary requirements were for food to be provided in 'small and bite-sized' pieces. However, there was no further information to explain why this support was required or the risks to the person if this guidance was not followed. This meant staff did not have access to clear and comprehensive information about the person's needs and the rationale for the support they received.

The provider discussed people's health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them; however, this was not always clearly reflected within care planning documentation. We found some care plans lacked sufficient information to guide staff in responding to specific health conditions and associated risks. For example, where people were living with epilepsy, care plans did not always describe the types of seizures a person may experience or provide clear guidance on when emergency medical support should be sought.

This meant there was a risk that important information about people's assessed needs was not consistently recorded and readily available to staff. However, despite these recording shortfalls, staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs and risks. Staff were able to explain the signs and symptoms they would monitor and the actions they would take to keep people safe, including when concerns should be escalated to healthcare professionals. This provided assurance that people received appropriate support, although improvements were needed to ensure care plans consistently contained comprehensive and person-centred information.

Staff, teams and external professionals worked collaboratively to support people and help achieve positive outcomes. Staff communicated effectively with each other through handovers, and regular team meetings, which helped ensure people received consistent and coordinated care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and knew when to seek advice or involve other professionals to meet people's changing needs.

Where required, staff worked in partnership with relatives, healthcare professionals and other services to support people's health and wellbeing. Relatives spoke positively about communication from the service and told us they were kept informed about any concerns or changes affecting their family member.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways that promoted their independence, choice and control. People were encouraged and supported to pursue goals and activities that were important to them, helping them maintain meaningful and active lives.

People and their relatives told us staff provided support to access the local community, attend appointments and participate in day centre activities. This support enabled people to develop skills, maintain social connections and achieve outcomes that mattered to them. Staff understood people's individual preferences and worked alongside them to encourage independence whilst providing appropriate levels of support.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people's care and support to drive continuous improvement and ensure outcomes were consistently positive. Staff were required to complete records of the care and support provided at the point of delivery. However, we found records were not always completed in a timely manner. This meant information was sometimes entered retrospectively, increasing the risk that details may not have been recorded accurately due to reliance on staff recollection.

Accurate and contemporaneous records are important to demonstrate that people's needs have been met and to enable effective oversight of the quality of care provided. The provider's systems had not always identified or addressed these recording issues promptly. Although people told us they were satisfied with the care they received and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs, improvements were required to ensure records were consistently completed at the time care was delivered and could be used effectively to monitor outcomes and identify opportunities for improvement.

The provider supported people to make informed decisions about their care and treatment and respected their right to give or withhold consent. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent before providing support and promoted people's choice and control over their daily lives. People told us staff treated them with respect and involved them in decisions about their care. One person said, "Staff know what they are doing and could just get on with things, but they always ask permission or give me a choice at mealtimes." This demonstrated that staff respected people's preferences and delivered person-centred care in a way that upheld their rights, dignity and independence.