Autism East Midlands Supported Living

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 62 (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 assessed and reviewed people’s health needs but their holistic needs, such as their wellbeing had not been fully considered to ensure people felt safe in their own home. Actions to address this are now being taken by the provider.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them but didn’t always consider what was important and mattered to them.

The service attempted to deliver care that was person-centred. Support plans were specific to people’s individual needs and positive behaviour support were in place and followed. However, the psychological impact of the behaviour of others was not always considered which meant that person centred care was not always delivered effectively.

Records confirmed referrals to external health professionals were made as required and their guidance incorporated into support plans to ensure continuity of care.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments, and an overview of each person’s health and support needs were available for clinicians to view. This ensured people were not required to repeat their stories, as assessments and support plans were shared across teams, reducing stress and improving outcomes. People's relatives spoke positively about the support provided by staff when accessing health services.

The provider worked effectively with internal teams and external agencies to coordinate clinics and social support. The service had processes in place to ensure care and support was coordinated including transport, where needed.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives.

There was a proactive and person-centred approach to promoting health and wellbeing. People were supported in managing their own health. Relevant information about people’s health needs was available in the event they required treatment at hospital.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Support plans included personal goals. Records showed that plans were updated when needs changed.

Staff were familiar with people’s known patterns of behaviour that could indicate distress or unmet needs and used this insight to support people.

Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place where people were assessed as lacking capacity to understand and make decisions about their health and safety, but the least restrictive options were not always in place.

An assessment had been completed for one person regarding their living arrangements. Although the decision made was to protect other people using the service, it meant that this person was restricted in what they could do in certain communal areas of the home. It also reduced their contact with the people they lived with. Following our assessment the provider has confirmed that this practice is no longer in place.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) principles. People were supported to make everyday decisions, such as how what they wanted to eat and the activities they wanted to do. Staff told us that they supported people at their pace and in their preferred way.