Active Support Service Ltd

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 this key question was rated good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff knew people well and were able to explain how individuals liked to be supported, including their preferences and routines. People and their relatives told us that staff understood what was important to them and provided care in a way that reflected their wishes. This helped ensure that, in practice, people experienced personalised and responsive support.

However, the written care plans did not consistently reflect this person-centred approach. Important details about people’s preferences, communication styles, and the ways they wished to be supported were not always recorded. One staff member said, “No, I don’t feel [care plans] are sufficient to provide truly person-centred care. Getting to know the customer truly helps me in my job to provide good person-centred care.” This meant the provider could not reliably demonstrate that all staff, including new or temporary staff, had access to the information needed to deliver fully personalised care.

Following feedback during the assessment, the registered manager took prompt action to address these gaps. Work had already begun to ensure care plans were updated with comprehensive, person-centred information for everyone using the service. This will help ensure that good practice observed in day-to-day care is accurately reflected in people’s written records.

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.

Staff knew people well and were able to share relevant information to ensure support remained consistent, even when people’s needs changed. People and their relatives told us they felt staff communicated well and were confident that information was passed on appropriately between the team.

The service worked in partnership with external professionals when required, and staff were proactive in seeking advice or input to support people’s health and wellbeing. The small and stable staff team helped ensure that people were supported by familiar staff who understood their routines and preferences, which contributed to positive outcomes and smooth, coordinated care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Where people had difficulty understanding written care plans, there was no evidence that these had been provided in alternative or accessible formats. One relative told us, “In the past we have done [person’s] plan in pictures, but we don’t do that now.” This meant that some people were not supported to access information about their care in a way that best suited them.

Despite this, care plans did document people’s communication needs, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to communicate effectively with the people they supported. People and their relatives told us staff adapted their approach and used methods that helped individuals understand discussions about their care. However, the lack of accessible written information reduced the provider’s ability to evidence that people consistently received information in ways that maximised their understanding, involvement and control.

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 and their relatives told us they felt able to share their views about the care and support they received. One relative said, “I have a really good relationship with the management. They email 2-3 times a week and keep me up to date.” They said the management team was responsive and took their feedback seriously. People had opportunities to provide feedback through care plan reviews, satisfaction surveys, and by speaking directly with staff during day-to-day support.

Relatives told us that when they raised any issues or concerns, the management team acted quickly and communicated openly about what had been done in response. Staff also described how they encouraged people to express their views and made sure these were considered when reviewing or adapting support.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. No issues were identified during the assessment. People were able to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff and leaders ensured that people received timely support and that any changes in need were responded to appropriately. There was no evidence of delays, barriers or inequalities in access to care.

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 experienced positive and consistent outcomes, and there was no evidence that any groups were disadvantaged in the quality of care or support they received. Staff and leaders ensured that people’s needs were met in a fair and equitable way, and feedback from people and their relatives indicated that everyone received a similar standard of care, regardless of their background or personal characteristics.

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 did not see any advanced care plans in place. Although no one using the service was nearing the end of life at the time of the assessment, there was no evidence that the provider had explored or recorded people’s wishes should there be a sudden change in their health. This meant the service did not have the information needed to support people to make informed decisions about important future life changes.

Goals had not been identified within people’s care plans, and there was a lack of documentation outlining what mattered most to people in relation to future planning. While staff understood people well in day-to-day practice, the absence of recorded future preferences limited the provider’s ability to demonstrate that people had been supported to consider and plan ahead for significant life decisions.