Rise up Support for Living Ltd

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 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 made sure the person was at the centre of their care and how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The registered manager told us how their detailed initial assessment enabled them to gain an in-depth knowledge of who people were and their needs, in terms of the care and support they required. They ensured information was regularly reviewed with people and their families, so the support matched what was wanted and needed.

A family member we spoke with told us they felt the care was person centred and was what their loved one wanted. They said, “The care is very much centred around [relative]. We would not look to alter or change the carers as we know they [relative] are in good hands. The manager sometimes asks if we would like different carers, but we don’t, the staff are clearly very professional and well trained.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The registered manager had a good knowledge of local services and had worked alongside other professionals so knew about what services existed and how to access them.

Where needed the provider was able to support people to access care and treatment in a timely way. Whilst this task was largely managed by people and their families, the provider was able to manage this responsibility in ensuring people had the support they needed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to the person’s needs. For example, a person the provider supported had a very limited use of the English language. The provider created a range of information in the person’s preferred language. They also communicated in writing to the person using their preferred language. When needed, the provider used translation tools found on the internet to ensure they were able to provide the person with the information in a way they would understand.

The provider also had a range of documents they produced which were written in other languages and in pictorial form. For example, these included how to raise a complaint as well as what action to take if abuse occurred.

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.

Information on how to feedback was made accessible to people so they could understand the questions and respond in a way that reflected their views on how to make further improvements to the quality of care.

Surveys were carried out on a regular basis to gain feedback from people and their families, and we saw how their comments were used to form an overall action plan for the service to enable it to continue to improve upon its performance.

A family member we spoke with felt they were listened to. They said, “I have the manager’s number and can call them whenever I need to, they always answer. I feel like I can say what I need to and I do believe the manager is willing to listen.”

The provider worked with people and their families to make sure people could access care and support when they needed it. The provider ensured people and their families had information about the range of services available to them and how to access them. The provider had the knowledge and experience of local services and told us if delays occurred, they knew how to step in to make sure people got the access to the services they needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information and made every effort to ensure people received the outcomes they wanted. A person we spoke told us how they wanted to remain living in their own home, close to family and the local area they had lived in for many years. The provider was able to ensure such outcomes were achieved by providing a consistent service and staff who were able to deliver a high standard of care.

A person’s family member told us, “We would not look to change the carers we have, if [relative] needs changed and if they needed more support, we would want it from these people, they are able to provide all of the support my [relative] needs.”

People’s care plans reflected their future wishes for care and support services. The provider routinely discussed changes with people and their families, recording people’s wishes about their care as their needs changed. Where appropriate the provider ensured families, views were heard and clearly recorded in people’s plans.

The provider’s plan included the support a person might want at the end of their lives. People were given the choice about what they wanted recorded and were respected if they did not want to discuss this with the provider.

The registered manager told us how they worked alongside people and their families and told us how they would be able to easily adapt and increase support hours to flexibly meet what was required of them.