Kind2U Living

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 service made sure the person was at the centre of their care and treatment and they decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in the person’s needs.

The person told us staff treated them as an individual and they received consistently good, person-centred care and support from them.

The staff were familiar with the person’s needs, preferences, and daily routines.

Care records contained personalised information about the person’s unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. For example, the person had stated, “My space is important to me, and I really cherish my privacy. I appreciate gentle prompts to help me stay on track, but constant reminders feel patronising and can be overwhelming.’

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of the person and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked closely with community health care providers and knew when to refer the person for specialist care. They accessed support, advice and treatment for the person from a range of appropriate health care professionals.

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

The service followed the principles of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to identify, record, and meet the information and communication needs of the person. This ensured the person was given information in a way they could understand.

Information about the person’s preferred method of communication and their needs was included in the person’s support plan and healthcare passport. Records provided staff with detailed information about whether or not the person could read, use the phone, communicate verbally, were sensory impaired and how information should be presented to them. The care plan highlighted the person had good verbal communication skills enabling them to interact with staff.

The service made it easy for the person and their relative to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved the person in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff and managers were in regular face-to-face, telephone and email contact with the person and their relative, who told us communication was good. The person was actively encouraged to be involved in decisions about the care and support they received from the staff.

We asked the person how they would raise concerns if they had any, we heard, “I’d go the manager. “I did it once.” The person’s relative said, “No I haven’t complained, I would though."

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

The person received support from staff according to their individual assessed needs and wishes. The person had access to external health care and social care professionals and bodies as and when needed and they were able to pursue social leisure activities they enjoyed. The person was supported to stay in regular contact with their friends and family.

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.

The service considered the person’s cultural and religious needs. This was reflected within the care plan.

The service complied with the equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with protected characteristics. The staff were trained, and alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage those who used the service and proactively sought to address barriers to improve the person’s experience.

The person was 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.

The person did not require any support with end of life care at the time of our inspection.

The person’s long term goals were included within the care plan and included details of how staff should support the person to achieve them.