Channel Court, Sugar Lookout

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 service’s first assessment. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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. Care plans were person centred and detailed people’s interests, social networks and preferences. For example, a care plan detailed how interactions with the persons family were organised. People views were reflected in their care plan. A staff member said, “You can’t plan people’s care without them.”

People’s religious and cultural needs were reflected and respected. A staff member said, “If they are Muslim they have prayer times. You give them space, give them time, let them practice their religion.”

People were encouraged to lead full and active lives. This included supporting people with education, social and physical activities and being part of their community. A staff member said, “It’s ensuring [Name of person] has got access to everyday life, they can access the community, groups, shopping and choosing things. We make sure [Name of person] is not excluded from everyday life.

There were some shortfalls fed back in care provision. We received feedback around people and relatives not always knowing which staff would attend and the impact this could have for people. A relative said, “The carers are all lovely people, happy and smiling. I never know who is coming though.” We also received some feedback around timekeeping. A social care professional commented that, “Carers were bringing children home early.” A relative said, “I also am noticing that they are coming back early from the trips out.”

The service worked with people, their families and other professionals to ensure care was joined up and supportive of people’s choices. A family member said, “The agency is very involved, and we have regular weekly meetings with the managers, and the carers come along too.” A social care professional said, “The manager attends weekly meetings and is responsive to requests and details.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was supplied in easy read, pictorial and alternative formats. Care plans described people’s preferred methods of communication. These included Makaton, now and next boards and picture exchange communication system (PECS). Hospital passports were available and up to date should an emergency visit be required. A staff member said, “We take PECS cards in a bag so we can remind [Name of person} where we’re going."

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. Complaints were recorded and responded to. Family members said they felt comfortable raising any concerns and had access to the complaint process. The complaints procedure was included in their welcome guide. Staff ensured people were supported to access the complaints process if needed. A staff member said, “Usually, for the person if the complaint is about a support worker they call management. If someone makes a complaint to us you support them with it, you report exactly what they said and when they said it and report it to the manager.” Feedback was sought through surveys and structured conversations with people and family members.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service worked with people to reduce barriers to care. For example, for 1 person a number of steps had been taken over a sustained period of time to enable a person to access dental care and treatment. This resulted in positive outcomes for the persons health and wellbeing.

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. People were supported to access the community and participate in every day life. Staff we spoke with demonstrated how support offered had improved education opportunities for people. Care plans showed how support was personalised for activities such as swimming, soft play and shopping.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, medical needs, including at the end of their life. The provider acknowledged this was an area of the service to develop in a sensitive, person centred way where appropriate. There was no one currently receiving a service who was approaching the end of their life.

Hospital passports were available to support people should an emergency hospital admission be required. The service worked with other agencies and professionals in working towards greater independence and a reduction in care interventions where possible. For example, reducing medicines and supporting people in developing their independence.