16 King Street Also known as O2 Care

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 good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 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.

People were able to express their individual needs and wishes and made their own decisions about how they spent their time or when they needed assistance from staff.

People were supported by a small stable staff team who were clearly aware of people’s individual needs. We observed kind, patient and dignified interactions between staff and people.Further training and development had been identified to enhance the knowledge and skills of staff in the specific needs of people.

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 worked collaboratively with other professionals to provide consistent care. Care plans detailed external services and professionals involved in the care and support of people. Feedback we received from professionals was positive. We were told, “They [staff team] have been receptive to professional advice regarding safety improvements, particularly in relation to supporting individuals who present with a high level of risk.”

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

People were able to verbally express their needs and wishes. Additional information, about people’s communication needs were reflected in their support plans.

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.

Systems were in place to guide people in raising any complaints or concerns. We were told no formal complaints had been received.

People and family members said opportunities to provide feedback or discuss any issues were readily available. Staff also told us they too had the opportunity to speak up, on both a formal and informal basis. We were told, “The management are always open to the staff and offer staff support with anything.”

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

People had access to health and social care professionals where needed, such as a GP, mental health care teams and advocacy. Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held to ensure people receive the treatment and support needed.

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.

As the service was small people were encouraged and had the opportunity to share their views openly with staff. Where people’s liberty was restricted, appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure their rights were protected.

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 documented their goals but not how these were to be achieved.Both people spoke about how they wanted more independence and to live independently. Whilst further work would be required to prepare people, we found records were not in place reflecting people’s aspirations and how they were to be supported in achieving greater independence and their transition to living independently.