Aura Supported Living Ltd Also known as Head Office

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 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 placed people at the centre of decisions about their care and support and worked in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs. Staff understood the importance of delivering care that reflected people's preferences, choices and individual circumstances. People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and that staff regularly checked whether their support continued to meet their needs.

While we identified some areas where care planning documentation required improvement and discussed these with the registered manager during the assessment, people consistently told us they received personalised care that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

Feedback from people was overwhelmingly positive. One person told us, "They [staff] can't do enough for me." Another person said, "They [the manager] always check I am happy with my carer, and any changes to my needs are always communicated to them."

The provider understood people's health and care needs and worked to ensure care was joined-up, flexible and supported continuity of support. For most people using the service, families played a significant role in coordinating healthcare appointments and wider care arrangements. As a result, people required only minimal support from staff in this area.

Despite this, staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's health needs and were aware of the actions required should additional support be needed. Staff knew when to escalate concerns, seek advice from healthcare professionals and communicate effectively with relatives to help ensure people received appropriate care and support.

The provider did not always ensure people were supplied with appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to their individual needs. Although people and their relatives told us they were involved in care planning discussions and decisions about their support, they consistently reported they had not been provided with copies of their care plans or access to information held about them.

One person told us, "I don't have a copy of my care plan in the home. I think it's electronic, but I don't have access to that either." Another person said, "I know they [staff] record things on an app on their phones, but I have never seen what they write or been given access to review this."

This meant people were not always able to readily access information about their care and support, review records maintained about them, or satisfy themselves that information remained accurate and reflected their current needs and preferences. While people told us they felt involved in decisions about their care, improvements were required to ensure they were routinely provided with, or given access to, care-related information in a way that promoted transparency, involvement and choice.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns and contribute ideas about their care and support. People told us they felt listened to and were confident their views would be acted upon. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and support and worked with them to make changes when their needs or preferences changed. This helped ensure care remained personalised and responsive.

People spoke positively about the accessibility of the management team and their willingness to listen and respond to feedback. One person told us, "The manager is always available to discuss my care or changes I need. We tweak things as we go and they always respond to my requests for this."

Feedback demonstrated people felt able to express their views and were actively involved in decisions about their care. The provider's approach supported a culture in which people felt valued, listened to and empowered to influence how their care and support were delivered.

The provider worked to ensure people had equitable access to the care and support they required. Although the service provided limited periods of support during scheduled visits, people told us staff were reliable, attended visits as planned and were flexible in responding to their individual needs. People and relatives said communication with the service was good, and they were able to contact the office or management team when they needed advice or support.

Staff understood people's individual circumstances and adapted their approach to ensure support remained accessible and responsive to their needs. Where people required assistance to access community activities, healthcare appointments or other services, staff provided support in line with their care plans and preferences. Feedback from people and relatives was consistently positive, and no concerns were raised regarding barriers to accessing care or support.

The provider worked to ensure people experienced equitable care and achieved outcomes that reflected their individual needs, preferences and circumstances. As a domiciliary care agency, staff spent limited periods of time with people during scheduled visits. However, people consistently told us the support they received was tailored to their needs and delivered in a way that promoted their wellbeing, independence and quality of life.

Care was delivered flexibly and people told us staff took time to understand what was important to them, ensuring support was personalised rather than task focused. Feedback from people and their relatives was consistently positive, with no concerns raised about unfair treatment or barriers to accessing support.

The provider recognised the importance of planning for the future and understanding people's wishes and preferences. At the time of our assessment, people told us they were supported by family members to make decisions about future care arrangements and did not require, or wish for, the provider to be directly involved in these discussions. Relatives were actively involved in supporting people with important decisions and advocating for their wishes when required.

Although the provider had a limited role in formal future care planning, staff knew people well and had developed positive relationships with them and their families. Staff were able to identify the people who were important in each person's life and knew who should be contacted in the event of an emergency or significant change in circumstances. This helped ensure people's wishes could be respected and that those closest to them would be involved in decisions affecting their care and wellbeing when needed.