West Lancashire Short Break Services

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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

Staff worked with people and their relatives, so they were appropriately involved in planning care and making shared decisions; ensuring they were regularly consulted about changes to people’s needs. We observed people receiving person-centred care and support in line with their individual needs and preferences.

The service ensured individual reasonable adjustments were in place so people could receive the most appropriate care and support for them . For example, people were allocated bedrooms based on their individual needs and preferences, had sensors available if they were needed, and were provided with adapted cutlery and crockery if required.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people with learning disabilities and autistic people , so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of people they supported, having access to autism and learning disability training; and a small, consistent team helped ensure continuity of care. A relative said, “They are a good crowd there. Most [staff] have been there for years and have so much knowledge of people.”

Staff worked with day services and unpaid carers in a transparent, collaborative and flexible way to make sure care was joined up for people. A partner told us, “We have contacted them in the past to see if casual staff are able to work with us when not required at the service.” A relative added, “I’m a single parent and if I needed to go to the hospital, it’s good to know they are flexible and will adapt to suit.”

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

The service did not sufficiently identify and record the communication needs of people. Communication support plans had not been completed in full and lacked detail about people’s specific communication needs. Several noted symbols or visual aids were to be used, but there was no specific information about which symbols or visual aids use, or how best to use these to engage people.

However, staff understood data protection requirements, and people and their relatives were provided with clear and transparent information about their terms and conditions in a way they could understand. The service provided some information and guidance in different languages, or formats such as easy read.

Following feedback, the manager assured us support plans would be improved when information was transferred to the new electronic care planning system.

The provider enabled 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.

The service ensured people and relatives understood how to give feedback, share ideas or make a complaint. People were able to give positive feedback or share concerns about stays using an easy read form, and surveys were sent bi-annually to relatives. The service had robust complaints procedures and details of how to complain were included in the service user guide.

Relatives felt confident their views or concerns were taken seriously, and the service took appropriate action in response to a concern or complaint, to improve the quality of care people received. A relative told us, “[Person] didn’t like the bed, so staff very quickly changed it. They do listen.” Another added, “I mentioned (a concern) to the manager. They took it on board. They’re very approachable and open minded and will go the extra mile to help.”

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

The service ensured the environment was very accessible, and reasonable adjustments had been made to reduce any physical barriers. There were adapted bedrooms and bathrooms, hoist systems and large open spaces for people who used wheelchairs or mobility aids. A relative said, “It’s all adapted for [person]. There’s a new ramp and the doors are great. A hoist, shower, commode, it’s all geared up.” Pictorial signage helped people with communication needs navigate around the service.

A person could not access community activities because they used a wheelchair and the service’s minibus was not appropriately adapted. The manager arranged to swap vehicles with another service to enable them to go out, considering their protected characteristics and removing any inequalities. Their overall enjoyment and experience of stays had improved as a result.

The service was always staffed to facilitate emergency placements, and arrangements to ensure managerial support was available out of hours or in an emergency had recently been improved.

The provider 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 had a good understanding of people who used the service and how they may experience inequalities due to their protected characteristics. The appropriate policies were available to aid staff understanding of equality and diversity, and staff had access to equality and cohesion training.

People and relatives had no concerns about discrimination within the service. A relative told us, “There’s different (levels of need) but there’s no differentiation. [Person’s] not made to feel the odd one, there’s always inclusion.”

The provider supported people to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Due to the nature of the service, there was no specific emphasis on planning for the future in support plans. However, the service worked with relatives and partners to proactively support people during important life changes such as moves to supported living services.

Staff gave examples of how they supported people to improve their independence, and reduce their future need for support. For example, supporting people to make their own drinks, encouraging them to help with food preparation or prompting them to pay for themselves when in the community.