Support at Home

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 64 (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 choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We were not always assured that care was consistently person-centred. Care plans did not always clearly reflect the person’s individual preferences, including how they wished to receive personal care and how frequently this should be provided. As a result, we could not be assured that care was always delivered in a person centred manner.

However, staff demonstrated a good understanding of the person, and observations showed staff interacted positively with them. Staff told us, “You get to know their needs by talking to them and understanding what they want,” which demonstrated that staff adapted their approach based on their knowledge of the person and their individual needs.

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.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always sufficiently detailed, we could not be assured that the person consistently received coordinated care. This may impact continuity of support and effective oversight of the person’s needs. In addition, there was limited evidence within daily records to confirm how consistently the person’s needs were being met.

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

The person was provided with information about their care in a way they could understand. Staff communicated using clear and accessible language and supported the person to understand information relating to their care and daily needs. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of effective communication and tailored their approach to meet the person’s individual needs.

One staff member told us, “Staff use simple, clear language and adapt how they speak,” which showed staff considered how best to communicate with the person.

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.

The provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people about their experiences of care and support. This included an annual customer satisfaction survey, which enabled people to share their views and experiences. Survey results were analysed, and services were expected to develop action plans to support continuous improvement.

The provider also had a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s policy and procedures.

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

The person was supported by staff to ensure they had equal access to care and treatment. Staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities to recognise and respond to potential discrimination and inequalities that could impact the person when accessing care and support.

Staff told us, “If (person’s name) needs help accessing any care, we provide support with that,” which showed staff were aware of their role in supporting equitable access to services. The person told us they attended church on Sundays, which demonstrated they were supported to access the community and maintain aspects of their daily life independently. Records confirmed what we were told.

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.

The person was supported to maintain aspects of their independence and access their local community in line with their preferences. However, we were not always assured that the person experienced consistently positive outcomes. Care records did not always demonstrate how the person had been involved in the development and review of their care and support arrangements. In addition, records did not consistently evidence that support was being provided in line with the person's assessed needs and preferences.

The person told us they would like more support with aspects of their personal care. Whilst staff understood the person's needs, care planning and recording systems did not always provide assurance that support was delivered consistently or that the person's desired outcomes were being achieved. We also found limited evidence that principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture had been fully considered and embedded within the service. However, the person was supported within a supported living model and maintained independence in accessing aspects of their daily life, including the community. Staff were available during allocated hours, and observations confirmed the person was able to approach staff as needed for support.

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 person’s future wishes and preferences were clearly considered and documented within their care plan. This included detailed information about their end-of-life wishes, such as funeral arrangements and personal choices, demonstrating a person-centred approach to future planning in line with their values and beliefs.