South East 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 some people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. However, the provider did not consistently ensure care was person-centred.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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 consistently ensure care was person-centred. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were not always involved in the development or review of care, meaning care did not always reflect individual preferences, needs, and current circumstances. Feedback showed some people were unaware of their care plans and some relatives were not routinely included.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and were observed providing appropriate care however care records did not always support person-centred care, as they were not consistently accurate, up to date, or reflective of people’s current needs. Information was added without outdated information being removed, resulting in records that contained conflicting or unclear details. This limited staff’s ability to deliver care tailored to the individual. For example, one person’s records continued to reference historic medicines errors without clear relevance to current risks or learning. Another person’s financial records contained conflicting information, this meant staff did not have clear or consistent guidance, increasing the risk of inconsistent support.

Documentation, including incorrect names and pronouns, which undermined respect for people’s identity and dignity and did not support personalised care.

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.

The service worked with external professionals, including GPs, community nurses and the local authority, to support coordinated care. Staff understood the importance of following professional advice and used this to promote people’s health and wellbeing, helping to ensure care was joined up and responsive to people’s needs.

The provider had established continuity of care in some of the supported living services, where people received consistent support from staff who knew them well and understood their needs. In the other supported living services, improvements had recently been made to develop a more stable staff team, meaning continuity of care was beginning to improve. This helped promote more consistent care and support for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs including easy read, visual aids and objects of reference.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Feedback indicated that communication with staff and management was generally positive. Relatives described staff as approachable, responsive, and open, and said they felt able to maintain regular contact. Families reported being kept informed about important matters and felt comfortable raising concerns or discussing issues. Positive relationships with individual staff supported ongoing engagement and reassurance.

There was a complaints procedure in place, including an easy‑read version. This indicated the provider had taken measures to ensure people could raise concerns in a format they understood.

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

During this assessment we did not identify any concerns about people’s ability to access services. The registered manager and staff understood the importance of equal access to care and worked to remove barriers.

Reasonable adjustments were made to support people to access healthcare and other services in a way that suited their needs. This helped prevent delays and ensured people were treated fairly.

People’s individual environments supported accessibility, including the gardens which were wheelchair accessible. This helped people move around safely and maintain their independence.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who may experience inequality in their care and support and took steps to respond. For example, staff identified that 1 person had experienced difficulties when accessing public transport, including discriminatory comments.

Leaders recognised this as a potential inequality in the person’s experience and took action to challenge these barriers. Concerns were reported appropriately, including to the police, and formal complaints were raised. The provider also offered to work directly with the transport provider to improve staff understanding and promote more inclusive practice. This demonstrated a proactive approach to advocating for people and addressing inequalities that could impact their independence and access to the community.

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. Where appropriate, people were given opportunities to discuss these topics in a sensitive and person-centred way.

Some people had recorded plans in place, including funeral arrangements which helped ensure their preferences were known and could be respected by staff.

This demonstrated that staff recognised the importance of forward planning and approached discussions in a considerate manner.