Leicester & Leicestershire 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 75 (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 center 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 had individual care and support plans which reflected their physical, emotional, and social needs. Care and support plans were detailed and comprehensive, they focused on people’s preferences and the things that were important to them. For example, care plans set out what a good day and a good week would look like for the person and how staff should communicate with them and provide support. Care plans provided comprehensive details for staff to follow about every aspect of people’s needs including health, social, cultural and emotional needs.

People told us they had their needs met. We observed staff to be following people’s care plans and delivering support in the correct way. People were working towards their known aspirations and following their chosen hobbies, interests and cultural needs.

Where appropriate, relatives told us they were fully involved in the care planning process and always consulted. Some relatives told us they were not involved, however the provider explained where people had capacity to make their own decisions, their choices were respected regarding involving others in this process. The registered managers agreed to improve communication with people’s relatives to explain and clarify this position.

People were offered a full care review at least once every 6 months. They were supported with decision making through effective communication tailored to their unique needs. Where people could not verbalise their preferences, they were supported through positive behaviour support functional analyses to better understand nonverbal actions as communication. Other people were supported with visual aids and easy read documents to communicate their decisions and needs

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 diverse support and health needs were clearly understood and appropriately met.

People were supported to access healthcare services and professionals when required.

The service respected people’s autonomy and independence, supporting them to make informed decisions about their support and healthcare. Staff advocated on behalf of an individual to enable access to a healthcare procedure which had not previously been offered. This proactive approach resulted in improved outcomes and a positive impact on the person’s overall wellbeing and quality of life.

People received the full care and support that had been funded. Staff worked with commissioners and other external professionals to ensure continuity of care was managed to meet people’s needs.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed, planned for and met. This supported staff to understand people’s individual communication needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and understood how to meet their needs. Weobservedstaff communicating with peopleeffectively andin line with their communication support plan.

Information was provided in ways to support effective communication and to promote understanding.For example, there was a range of easy read documents available.

The provider was meeting the ‘accessible information standard’ which is a legal requirement for providers of health and social care. Staff had training and understood their responsibilities to meet general data protection regulations.

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.

People told us they could share feedback and ideas with staff and managers and they were listened to. People had opportunities to provide feedback about their experience at care and support reviews, at meetings known as ‘voice groups’ and as part of service leader and manager audits.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about communication. Some relatives told us they did not feel communication was always effective. Some relatives said they experienced difficulty getting to speak with a manager. When we fed this back to the registered managers they told us they were considering how to improve communication with people’s relatives.

Other relatives told us they had easy access to managers and could share feedback including concerns. They said they were listened to. A relative said, “Yes I do that quite regularly because I’m very close to everything. I raise anything as soon as I have a concern. I would also make a complaint if I needed to.” Another relative said, “They keep in touch with and I get swift replies from the manager when I contact them.”

The provider had a complaints policy and procedure to ensure all complaints were investigated in a timely way and action taken to resolve any issues

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

People received the care and support they received regardless of any protected characteristics. Care and assessment processes and records identified people’s needs and considered their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Staff knew people well and understood their needs. They respected people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff had training about equality and diversity and told us how they applied this in day-to-day practice. Staff described how they used assistive technology and communication strategies to support people to overcome barriers to accessing care and support. These were detailed within peoples care and support plans.

Managers were alert for discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people. They sought peoples feedback through reviews, meetings and quality assurance audits. Peoples feedback was used to improve experience and access to care and support.

Staff had specific training about learning disability and autism to enhance people’s rights and communication needs.

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.

People had good outcomes and experiences. Staff were genuinely interested in people’s views and were motivated to promote good outcomes and experiences including respecting and upholding people’s rights. People were supported to celebrate their unique diversity. One person was supported to attend their first gay pride event.

Cultural and religious needs were supported and incorporated within people’s care and support needs and day to day activities and routines.

The providers policies and procedures were in-line with current best practice guidance around equality and discrimination and included equality impact assessments. The providers values included respecting people’s individual choices, promoting inclusion, rights and independence.

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.

People were engaged in planning their life ahead to ensure it is a was life they chose. People’s skills, life experience and strengths were discussed with them and those involved in their care. Support plans were reviewed at least every 6 months and changes made accordingly.

People’s decisions and what mattered to them were known and delivered through personalised care plans. People were supported to establish their aspirations and goals and supported to meet these. People had been supported to overcome personal barriers, to increase their independence with daily living tasks and to go on holiday.

A staff member told us,” Management make sure people achieve their goals, we go through this with them and what they want to do. We look at these things daily.”

People’s end of life wishes were recorded along with any do not resuscitate decisions where this was applicable.