Midlands Supported 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.

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 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 did not always make sure people were fully at the centre of their care and treatment choices, particularly in relation to their long-term wishes and aspirations.

Care plans were individualised and showed an understanding of people’s current needs. Staff responded quickly when people showed signs of distress or sensory overload and knew people’s triggers well. We observed staff acting promptly to minimise anxiety and support people in ways that reflected their preferences.

However, care records did not consistently reflect people’s longer-term wishes, goals or ambitions. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to support people to work towards outcomes that mattered to them over time. This limited how person-centred care planning was for 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.

People’s support needs were clearly documented, including how care was commissioned and reviewed. We saw an example where a relative requested additional support to help a person learn new skills. The provider worked with commissioners to request further funding, which was agreed, ensuring the person’s needs continued to be met.

Staff worked closely with external professionals and agencies to support people’s health and wellbeing. Relatives and professionals did not report any concerns about how care was coordinated.

The provider made sure people received information in ways they could understand.

Staff appropriately identified people’s individual communication needs and used these effectively in daily practice. We observed staff adapting how they communicated to support people who were non-verbal or had complex communication needs. These needs were shared with others involved in people’s care where appropriate.

Staff understood the importance of data protection and were able to explain how information was shared safely to protect people. This helped ensure people and their relatives were kept informed while maintaining confidentiality.

The provider listened to people and involved them, and their relatives, in decisions about care and support.

Relatives told us they felt listened to and confident that concerns or suggestions would be taken seriously. One person told us that “I know I will be listened to” if they contacted the service. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt action would be taken. We saw evidence of residents’ meetings where people were encouraged to speak up.

Staff surveys were used by managers to gather feedback and develop action plans to improve the service. This showed the provider sought feedback and used it to make improvements.

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

The provider listened to people and involved them, and their relatives, in decisions about care and support.

Relatives told us they felt listened to and confident that concerns or suggestions would be taken seriously. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt action would be taken. We saw evidence of residents’ meetings where people felt able to speak up.

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 understood that people with learning disabilities and autistic people are more likely to experience inequalities. They demonstrated awareness of people’s cultural needs and supported people to follow diets and routines that reflected these.

People were supported to take part in everyday activities and community life, such as eating out, holidays and social events. Relatives told us the service adapted around people to help them live fulfilling lives comparable to others in the community.

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.

We found limited information about long-term planning, including end-of-life care. Where people did not wish to discuss this, there were no clear records to show how decisions would be made in an emergency or how the topic would be revisited in a sensitive way.

This meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to support people’s future wishes or respond to unexpected changes in health. As a result, planning for the future was not always robust or person centred.