Newtown (65a)

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 inspection we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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 told us staff supported them to do the things they wanted and helped them to plan activities, such as going on holiday and socialising. People and their relatives had been involved in planning the support they needed and in setting goals for things they wanted to do in the future. Plans were built around these goals to support people to achieve them. Examples included support for people to be more independent with their personal care and food preparation.

Staff said the service was focused on meeting people’s specific needs, to help them develop skills and independence. This approach was reflected in the records of support provided.

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 care records demonstrated the provider worked in partnership with other care providers and health services, to ensure people received continuity of care. Examples included work with the specialist epilepsy and diabetes nurses. The service had a stable staff team who knew people well, which helped to promote continuity of care for people.

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

At our inspection published in January 2018 we identified the provider did not always ensure information was provided to people in formats that were accessible for them. At this inspection we found this had improved.

People’s communication needs had been assessed, and a communication support plan had been developed. The communication plan for 1 person included pictures of the specific signs they used to help staff understand them. Information on how to make a complaint, contact details for anyone who doesn’t feel safe and support plans were provided in accessible formats for people, using symbols and pictures to help people’s understanding. We observed staff using these communication systems during the inspection, including use of Makaton sign language. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s communication needs.

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 were supported to have monthly meetings with their keyworker and people who were important to them, to review their support. A relative told us, “We attend [person’s] reviews and if I have any concerns, I can contact them and they resolve it quickly. I have faith in the manager.” The provider had a complaints procedure, which was shared with people and relatives and made available in the service. The registered manager reviewed any concerns or complaints that had been raised as part of their monthly governance meetings, to ensure they had been followed up and action taken. Records demonstrated no formal complaints had been received in the last year, but the manager had regular contact with relatives to address any smaller concerns they had.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Assessments included the support people required to access the care they needed, including any specific equipment or adaptations. The assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. People were able to access all areas of their home and staff were available to support people to access services in the community when it was needed. Staff had worked with health professionals to ensure 1 person could access the medical support they needed despite a phobia of some aspects of their treatment.

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.

The registered manager was aware of the barriers people with learning disabilities and autistic people may face and worked with a range of agencies to support people to overcome these. The registered manager ensured people were being supported in the least restrictive way possible which still met their needs. Staff had worked with health and social care professionals to reduce restrictions for people, for example reducing psychotropic medicines. People were supported to access local community services and healthcare by staff when needed. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and had a good understanding of the discrimination people may experience.

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.

The service was not providing end-of-life care. Work to support people to identify their wishes for the future and plan out support they needed had been started and staff had supported some people to develop detailed plans about their wishes. The registered manager had identified specialist resources to help staff support other people in this.