Sheffield Supported Living

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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 plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People's care plans and risk assessments were not always personalised.

People and relatives told us they were involved in the assessment of their needs. The registered manager told us they carried out a full assessment before people started using the service to ensure their needs could be met. This involved meeting people and getting feedback from health professionals involved in the person’s care. However, we found this was not reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments accurately.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The assessment process ensured a person-centred plan of care was developed, including what is important and matters to each person. Files included a one-page summary of topics such as 'What is important to me', 'what people like and admire about me' and 'how best to support me'. This information told staff personalised individual information about people. This ensured effective ongoing care.

Overall, staff communicated well with other professionals. However, the level of communication with other professionals varied across each supported living service. For example, in some instances where there were different providers supporting people communication was not always joined up and consistent to delivering safe and effective care to people in line with their individual needs.The new registered manager was working to improve communication systems across all the services. However, this needed to be fully implemented and sustained.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were provided with support from a range of health professionals to maintain their health. These included GPs, consultants and psychiatrists. Records contained clear details of people's health needs and how these were supported.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People told us they were confident the support they received enabled them to safely live at the home as this was important to them.

Staff regularly asked people to give them feedback on their experiences of the care they were receiving. They listened to their responses and tailored the care they gave where this was needed.

Each person had a care plan which recorded the outcomes they wanted to achieve and contained information about how they wanted to be supported. People were fully involved in the assessment and care planning process to ensure their care was tailored to their own preferences.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People and their relatives confirmed people's right to make their own decisions was respected. For example, a person told us, "I chose everything in my bedroom, and I have got everything I want." While the people we spoke to expressed, they were happy with the environment, our assessment found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, records relating to consent and capacity needed improvement. For example, records did not always demonstrate people, or their legal representatives had consented to their care.

Despite the issues with records, we saw no indication people's rights were restricted. Staff understood the importance of supporting people to make their own decisions. They obtained consent from people before they provided any care and support.