Select Lifestyles Regent House

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment.

People did not consistently receive person centred care as they had not always been involved with all care decisions and the care they received was not always individual to them. For example, people did not always receive their assessed levels of support from staff and people had not always been involved with decisions about their medicines and monies.

However, there was evidence in care plans in place to show the provider had considered some preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff knew people well and what was important to them. One staff member told us, “Care and support is tailored to individual needs for resident’s differences, I work very closely with my residents and know them very well and I’ve studied their care plan, so I tailor my support to them to ensure their care is individual for them. I understand which residents need my full support and for residents who are a bit more independent only need prompts.”

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.

The care delivered was not always in line with a supported living model which meant the care provided was not always in line with best practice or in line with the provider’s statement of purpose. A statement of purpose is a document that providers submit to CQC at the point of registration (and when any changes occur) that describes what the service does.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about if they received consistent care. One relative told us, “Staff don’t always seem to be the same ones. Not consistent. Very frustrating.” Another relative told us, “More activities when at home is needed”. Other relatives felt the care was consistent.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed, we could not be assured that people received consistent care. There was a system in place to monitor and review care however as it was not considering all relevant incidents, we could not be assured it was effective.

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

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided. One relative told us, “They interact with her. I have no complaints. They know what she likes and doesn’t like. She makes it clear. They use Makaton. Staff are trained in Makaton”. Makaton is a language program that combines speech and symbols to help people with communication or learning difficulties.

Communication care plans were in place and detailed how people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. The registered manager confirmed information was provided to people in a format or language they could understand if requested. Staff were aware of people’s communication needs, what this meant for people and how to offer support with this.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Relatives felt they were involved with their relations care, and they were listened to when needed.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure.

The provider did not ensure that all people who used the service received care in line with the supported living model.

Some people who used the service at some of the locations that supported living was delivered from did not access the same level of care as others. For example, at 1 location we saw that some people’s medicines and all people’s monies were stored away from their individual homes in communal storage. This meant some people did not have the same access to their money and medicines as others.

However, systems were in place to ensure people could access care, support and treatment from other agencies when they needed it. People and relatives told us they could access other health professionals as required.

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

As people’s care was not always tailored to deliver a model of supported living, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences. We found that people did not consistently receive the 1 to 1 support they required because staff were not consistently and effectively deployed and managed which also led to people experiencing differing outcomes.

However, there were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care, if needed. The registered manager was aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and where they could get support with this.

People were 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 registered manager confirmed they were not supporting anyone who was currently receiving end of life care; however, they could consider this as part of the assessment process where appropriate.