West Hampshire DCA

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 good. This meant people’s needs were met.

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 and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives, with staff demonstrating a good understanding of individual needs, preferences and communication styles. Feedback from relatives highlighted a collaborative approach, with people involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain relationships and access meaningful activities. Staff adapted support flexibly when needs or preferences changed and interactions were respectful, promoting dignity, consent and wellbeing.

However, care planning did not always fully reflect this approach, as outcomes were sometimes broad and not clearly personalised or measurable, and records did not consistently evidence people’s involvement. These gaps had minimal impact on people’s experience, as staff consistently delivered person-centred care in practice.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staffing arrangements were in place 24 hours a day to ensure people received consistent support. While rotas and daily records did not always clearly evidence allocated one-to-one hours, feedback from relatives indicated that people received the support they required in practice.

Relatives described positive experiences of continuity and consistency, with one stating their family member was “either at [day services] or with staff… her hours are there to keep her safe and happy,” and another confirming their relative was “never alone and there is always someone there.” Families also highlighted the consistency of staff, noting the use of a regular team and familiar staff when additional support was needed.

This demonstrated that, although recording of hours could be strengthened, people experienced consistent and continuous support that promoted stability and met their individual needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was adapted to support people’s communication preferences, including the use of easy read documents such as tenancy agreements and tenancy handbooks, alongside pictorial formats and visual prompts. This ensured people were provided with clear, accessible information about their rights, responsibilities and living arrangements.

Staff used a range of communication methods, including Makaton, verbal communication, body language and personalised signs, to ensure people could understand information and express their views, including information relating to their tenancy and day-to-day living. Staff also recognised and responded to individual communication styles; for example, 1 person used a doll to express feelings and needs, which staff understood and used as a way to support communication. These approaches enabled people to access information in ways that suited them, promoting understanding, involvement and independence.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Systems were in place to support this, including regular resident meetings, a complaints procedure available in accessible formats such as Easy Read, and staff available 24 hours a day to listen and respond to concerns or feedback.

Relatives described being actively involved in people’s care and decision-making, with 1 referring to “a very collaborative relationship” and others confirming they were “always consulted” and kept up to date. Feedback highlighted open communication, with relatives able to discuss care, risks and day-to-day arrangements. One relative said, “We pretty much discuss everything,” reflecting an open and inclusive approach.

Relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and approach staff, who were described as approachable and responsive. Overall, systems supported people and those close to them to share their views, contribute to decisions and remain involved in all aspects of care and support.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Services were located within the community, with access to local transport links, shops and amenities, enabling people to attend healthcare appointments and engage in community activities.

Where additional support was required, action was taken to reduce barriers to access. For example, a referral had been made to occupational therapy to secure funding for a ramp, improving 1 person’s access to their back garden. This demonstrated a proactive approach to ensuring people could access both their environment and the wider community, supporting independence and inclusion.

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.

Relatives did not identify any barriers to support and described a flexible and responsive approach. One relative told us, “I do not feel there are any barriers to my brother’s support,” while another said, “If my sister wants to do something then it will be looked at, I am not aware of any barriers.”

Feedback reflected that staff were proactive and willing to adapt support in response to people’s needs, with 1 relative highlighting a “flexible attitude” and staff being “willing to look at new ideas.” Adjustments were made where required to support inclusion and accessibility, for example the installation of a stair lift to improve access within the home. Relatives also described how staff adapted support where people’s preferences changed, helping to ensure people could continue to engage in meaningful activities. This demonstrated that people experienced care, which was responsive and inclusive, supporting equitable outcomes in practice.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future. There was some evidence of end-of-life planning in place. However, people’s future wishes had not always been clearly explored or recorded.

Although some aspirations had been identified in practice, such as taking part in activities or trips, these were not consistently recorded in a way that demonstrated forward planning or how people would be supported over time to achieve them over time.

Overall, whilst people’s day-to-day needs were met, there was limited evidence of structured and proactive planning to support future decisions, life changes and longer-term aspirations.