Archived: Social Care Solutions Limited (Northampton)

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 service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. The provider did not have systems in place to assess, record, or manage people’s future planning. There was no provision or process for people to manage death within their family and friendship group. Not all staff knew the resuscitation status of the people being supported by the service.

This service scored 32 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider had failed to support staff and provide adequate oversight to help them understand how to truly deliver person-centre care in practice. As a result, we found this failure had impacted on most of our quality statements during this assessment. This meant people were not at the heart of how their care and support was delivered.

People’s care plans contained some details about people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. However, this was not consistent and for some support needs, care plans did not exist or needed more detail to help guide staff about how to support people. For example, some people using the service had specific health needs such as epilepsy and diabetes, however, care plans contained limited guidance for staff on how to support people appropriately and safely.

The area manager told us care plans were assessed at least monthly. However, we found these were not effective, and there were significant gaps in the completion. Records showed a lack of involvement from people and their relatives in the review of people’s needs.

We were not assured people were always at the centre of their care or that their needs were being met appropriately. This meant person-centred care had not been sufficiently implemented or embedded in care delivery.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Relatives told us some people attended a daycentre or accessed other activities funded by the local authority. The provider told us, “We have a good working relationship with the daycentre. We email or call with any updates and the day centre do the same in return.”

The provider did not have an effective process to monitor the delivery of people’s care hours commissioned by the local authority and was unable to assure us they were providing all the hours they were contracted to deliver.

Staff did not have enough skills or support to understand the needs of people living with a learning disability, autism or other specific need such as diabetes, or to complete all delegated healthcare tasks in line with guidance.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

The provider had some accessible information, for example, the complaints and speaking out policy, advocacy information, satisfaction questionnaire, and tenancy agreement. However, there was no assurance people had been supported to understand these beyond a copy being made available in people’s care files.

Some people required information to be shared with them using a communication aid, or a specialist communication technique such as ‘Makaton.’ However, not all staff had received Makaton training, so we were not assured people would always receive information in a format accessible to them.
 

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints and compliments policy that was supported by an accessible complaints’ and speaking out document. A summary of complaints and compliments about the service was provided for the last 12 months describing 2 complaints in February 2024 and 1 compliment in November 2024. We were not assured all complaints and compliments had been logged or shared by the provider.

A satisfaction survey was sent to people in an accessible format in 2025 to obtain feedback about the service. We found copies of the completed survey in people’s care files; however, it was not clear how people had been involved in the completion of the survey or how people with communication needs had been supported to understand and respond to the questions.

We asked the provider to share the outcome from relatives’ satisfaction surveys; however, a response had not been received at the end of this assessment. A relative told us, “I’ve never been asked to complete a questionnaire about care.”
 

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had not always been referred for assessments. For example, not all staff and leaders were aware of the continence service. We found some people were accessing the continence service; however, others were purchasing their own continence aids. The provider had not made the necessary referral for a continence assessment for people who required this support.

People living with diabetes did not have a robust health plan, for example, for yearly eye care, the care plan stated they had visited an optician, there was no information about yearly retinopathy screening.

We found the experience of people accessing all the services available to them was dependent upon the experience of staff and the leader responsible for their particular home. This meant the provider did not have sufficient systems in place to monitor people’s care and establish if all people had equity in access to all services available to them to meet their needs.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

People were not always treated as an individual. For example, there was a lack of evidence to show people’s strengths, goals and aspirations were used as a basis on which to provide care and support to live independent lives.

We found limited evidence the service supports all people without capacity to access independent advocacy. This meant the manager could not be assured all people had the same access to their voices being heard and their rights respected. The experience of people receiving their planned care in a safe and dignified way was dependent upon the experience of the staff and the leader responsible for their particular home. The provider did not have sufficient systems in place to monitor people’s care to establish if all people were receiving and had good outcomes.

People were not supported 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.

No one at the service was receiving end of life care at the time of this assessment.

There was limited evidence of how staff supported people to plan for important life changes and future care, so they can have the time and support for informed decisions to be made about their future, including at the end of their life. There was no provision or process for people to manage death within their family and friendship group, and care records contained limited information or guidance for staff.

Not all staff knew the resuscitation status of the people being supported by the service. We asked staff about people’s resuscitation status in 1 home and were told to, “Ask the manager about that.” This meant staff did not have all the information they would require to pass on to health professionals when people’s health deteriorated, or in an emergency.

The provider had systems in place to support people with planning for their future, however, these had not been implemented effectively in the service and failed to adequately assess, record, or manage people’s future planning.