Priory Supported Living Hull & East Riding

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 centre 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 were empowered to make decisions about their care and there was clear information for staff to follow about how to meet people’s needs. Support plans were comprehensive and person centred. They were regularly reviewed, when people’s needs changed or following any significant events. Daily records showed that care was delivered in line with people’s needs and preferences.

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 provider had worked with local authority commissioners and the housing provider to develop the supported living services in the local community. The provider continued to work with relevant partners, such as the housing provider, and local health services and professionals, to ensure people received holistic support and continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that could be tailored to individual needs. Staff considered people’s communication needs, and some key information was available in easier read format, such as the complaints procedures and the minutes of regional meetings for people using the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People were invited to attend regular ‘Our Voice’ tenants meetings, to discuss any issues affecting them at the service, and to enable them to share ideas for improvement. Suggestions were followed up on. In recent meetings staff had discussed with people about the CQC ‘I Statements’ (these statements reflect what people using services have told CQC matters to them). People were asked their views about whether they felt their care was in line with these statements. People could also share any feedback in individual review meetings or surveys. The provider had a complaints policy, and we found that complaints raised had been appropriately investigated and responded to.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff tailored their support to enable people to access the services they needed to. They were aware of barriers people could potentially face and promoted people’s human rights. The service was flexible, and people had access to support in the event of emergencies. One person was awaiting new mobility equipment at the time of our assessment, which had impacted on their recent access to the community. They had chosen to deal with the issue without further support from the provider, although assistance was available should they need it.

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 were aware of people’s individual needs, including any protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Relevant information about this was recorded in support plans. Staff provided individualised support to ensure people experienced positive outcomes. This included examples of improved health and wellbeing. The provider had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion policy, and staff had received training in this area.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. The provider worked together with other professionals to support people in working towards longer term goals, such as increasing their independence and moving on from the service to live independently, where this may be appropriate for some individuals. People also had opportunity to share and record their wishes about the end stage of their lives, should they want to. No one using the service was receiving support with end of life care at the time of our assessment, but the provider told us they would work with relevant health professionals and provide additional training for staff should this be needed.