Archived: Optimum Supported Housing Limited

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 at the new registered address 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 legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 25 (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 failed to ensure people who use services and those close to them (including carers and dependants) are regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment, so it is centred around them and their needs. For example, we identified 3 people where their care and support plans had not been discussed or agreed with the person or their representative. One person moved into the service in July 2022, and their care plan was not implemented until September 2024. The care plan also did not detail who was involved with forming and approving the care plan.

The provider did not always ensure that care and support plans detailed people’s goals and aspirations, where expectations were detailed, these were generic and not person centred. For example, one person’s ‘future expectation’ around washing was to ‘reduce infection and spread of germs’. Another ‘future expectation’ around a person’s morning routine was to ‘Maintain good health and personal hygiene’. People were not supported to create goals that were personal to them and there was no information for staff to ensure they could support people to meet goals they had.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. People did not always have continuity of care from staff. The provider told us the work force was predominantly agency staff which meant the provider could not assure people there would be consistency with their care and support staff.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s care and support plans were not accurate and did not contain important details around people’s health conditions and what support they need from staff. People’s communication preferences were not always considered. One person’s care plan detailed they needed staff to communicate with them using short sentences or British Sign Language (BSL). There was no other information within the care plan in relation to BSL and how staff should support the person with their communication preference.

One person’s first language was not English, and they required an interpreter to support them to understand decisions being made. Whilst some documents did detail that an interpreter was used there was no other information as to what support the person receives on a day to day basis with their communication.

The provider had not always ensured that people and relatives could feedback in a range of accessible ways. For example, one person’s first language was not English and there was not detail in their care plan on ways they could make a complaint or how they could be supported to make a complaint in an accessible way of their choosing.

The provider had a complaints policy in place and 1 complaint had been received. Whilst the records detailed that the provider had taken action following the complaint, such as updating care plans and risk assessments, there was no evidence of this. Also, the complaint records detailed that future feedback from the relative needed to be sought. However, there is no record of future feedback being sought or how the provider would ensure this action was followed.

The complaints policy was not in an accessible format for all people. For example, for people who had a cognitive impairment, there was not a picture format complaints policy.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. People’s care and support plan did not always provide enough guidance for staff around accessing other service. For example, one person’s care plan said they needed to visit the dentist, but did not document when their last visit to the dentist was, when their next appointment was, if there were any recommendation from the dentist or how the provider will ensure that attending the dentist is made accessible for that person when considering their support needs.

People were supported to access services such a GP practice, but the appointments were not always recorded and documented by staff.

People’s care and support did not always promote equality or remove barriers and delays. Whilst people told us they were mostly happy with their care they received, people’s care plans did not always ensure staff could support positive outcomes for people. For example, one person with epilepsy had poor guidance in place and staff had a very poor understanding on how to support someone with epilepsy safely and in a positive way where they could access the community without barriers. There was no information in the care and support plan on how to ensure they were able to access to community safely in relation to their epilepsy.

Some people were supported to access places in relation to their protected characteristics, such as religious places.

People were not always 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. People’s care plans did not always contain information around end of life care planning. Where end of life planning was considered for one person, there was very little detail on what was discussed, the outcome of the discussion and who made those decisions.