Comprigney Vean

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.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 was exceptional at making 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.

Care was person-centred and flexible to fit in with the person’s changing needs. Staff were able to adapt their approaches to help ensure meaningful outcomes. As a result, the person had experienced increased independence and was taking more control over their daily life.
Staff told us they were focused on supporting the person to develop their independence in all areas of their lives. This included practical independent living skills, choice and decision making and being more flexible with their routines.
Staff described how self-imposed routines were one of the biggest restrictions for the person and they were helping them to gently push these. Staff were thoughtful and reflective when describing this to us. They had clearly spent time considering how to support the person in a way which would lead to better outcomes for them. One told us, “It’s blurring the edges of routines, doing the same, same, same but very slightly different. Like a rubber gradually rubbing the edges away.” Another explained, “It’s about not letting their world shrink. [Name] might want to rush to get back for a certain time. We try and let them know nothing bad will happen, we can stay out. We try and keep things fluid to stop them self-restricting. If we can move the time, they do something, even if only by a couple of minutes we can build on it.”
The person was fully involved in household tasks and activities. They independently completed everyday tasks such as hoovering and general tidying. They had been supported to help build garden furniture and were able to access the garden at any time.
Staff told us the person had used pictures in the past to make choices such as what to eat. However, they had found this had become counter-productive as they would often just select a picture at random without looking at the options. They had identified the person was usually able to tell them what they wanted or write it down. They encouraged the person to use a tablet for communication support when needed.
Access to outdoor spaces and exercise were important to the person and this was understood by the provider and the service. Staff with similar interests and a love of the outdoors were matched with the person. Staff supported them to take part in a wide range of outdoor activities. For example, a member of staff told us the person loved being in the sea. They regularly swam and had tried kayaking. They were planning for them to try paddle boarding in the future.

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.

Staff understood the different health and social needs of the person they supported. They used this knowledge to tailor care and respond to the person’s needs. Staff worked closely with relatives and other services and shared information appropriately so care could be delivered in a consistent way.

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

There was an emphasis on the importance of effective communication. Staff had supported the person to trial varies methods of communication they were now using a tablet was working well. Meeting minutes showed staff were aware of how information was presented might influence the person’s response. For example, always choosing the last option offered. Therefore, staff would vary how choices were presented to support more meaningful decision making.

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.

There was a clear focus on putting the person at the centre of their care. Staff told us the person would sometimes ask for ‘permission’ before completing certain routines such as taking a shower or going to bed. A member of staff told us, “There is always a lead member of staff in the day. When we say good night we can say to [Name], you are the lead now. It’s up to you.”
Relatives had frequent contact with the service, visiting and phoning regularly.

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

The service worked with other health care agencies to make sure people had access to external care and support as needed. People attended regular check-ups and screenings.

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.

Staff actively encouraged the person to take part in new and meaningful experiences that reflected their interests and preferences. They demonstrated a reflective and empowering approach to understanding the barriers which might prevent the person accessing their local area. One member of staff explained, while there might sometimes be challenges, these could be dealt with. They commented, “Everything is usually manageable. We can use calming breaths for as long as it takes as a distraction. Then we can discuss (the situation) with [Name] and then get them to move on.”

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.

Future planning focused on building people’s independence and broadening their experiences. The registered manager had worked with the person’s family to develop an end of life care plan.