Sahara Parkside

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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. People chose the food they wanted to eat each day. The provider supported each person to create their own menu plans and where possible people were supported to buy the things they needed to create their meals.

Each flat had its own laundry facilities and people were supported with this and other aspects of maintaining their environments. We met 2 people living together who were related, they had chosen to live together and had a pet cat.

People were supported to do the things they wanted to do. Records detailed people engaging in a wide range of social activities which included using various forms of transport to do routine tasks such as shopping as well as more recreational activities such as bowling and cinema.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider created information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. We saw evidence of house meetings with minutes written using pictures to a support people’s understanding. There was also, information displayed throughout the building, which was accessible to people, informing them of different events.

People took part in regular meetings to discuss important issues relating to them such as things they wanted to do, their safety and reminders of who they could talk to if they were concerned.

The provider had made attempts to gain the views of people’s relatives with an annual feedback form. The provider acknowledged the problems they were having and told us that they were attempting to seek feedback as and when families came into the service instead.

The provider used an anonymous survey to gain the views of staff. The provider actioned issues raised, allowing the wider team to contribute to the solutions to problems identified. The feedback was generally positive, and staff were able to speak up about the ways in which the service could make further improvements.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People accessed health professionals when required. The deputy manager told us about how they liaised with people’s GP’s and built good working relationships to make sure everyone had equal access to the care they needed.

People made good use of their local community and any barriers they faced were identified and overcome such as the use of local facilities and transport systems.

Care plans were written in a way that made it easy for staff to follow and offer the right support to people. Staff had access to training that addressed issues faced by people with learning disabilities and autistic people about the potential barriers they could face and how staff should support them to overcome them.

Staff told us how people were supported to access places of worship and how staff were matched depending on a particular faith.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.