Autism East Midlands Supported Living

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 needsAt our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requirimprovement

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s holistic needs were not always met.

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 aimed to ensure 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 their support. However, we were not confident that the people living in both houses were all compatible to live with each other. Incidents had occurred in both houses that impacted on people, either physically or emotionally or both. This meant person centred care could not always be provided. The provider has advised us that reassessments have been arranged to review this.

People were supported to express their preferences and staff made efforts to accommodate these in areas such as meals, activities, and routines.

Activities such as shopping, visiting parks and community facilities were mentioned by people and their relatives. These opportunities helped people maintain a connection with the wider community.

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 service provided care that was coordinated, flexible, and responsive to people’s assessed needs.

The provider worked with health professionals to ensure peoples assessed needs were met. Care records reflected the coordinated support provided by the service and external professionals, ensuring continuity and responsiveness.

Not all records were accurate and up to date in people’s care plans.

The provider supplied information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service adhered to the Accessible Information Standard, with communication preferences clearly identified, recorded, and acted upon. Information was routinely provided in accessible formats, such as easy read, supporting people to engage with their care and understand the options available to them.

The service had a complaints policy in place and information was available 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.

Relatives told us they knew how to raise any concerns but were not always confident that complaints or suggestions would be taken seriously. This was regarding behaviours demonstrated by other people using the service that impacted on their loved one. One relative told us, “I have not been asked for my input by management, occasionally by individual care staff. When I have offered input, it has been ignored.”

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

The provider was aware of the importance of removing barriers to care, and supported people with disabilities, communication needs, or other protected characteristics. Reasonable adjustments were made, such as offering easy-read materials and accessible premises, to help ensure that care was inclusive and equitable.

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.

Support plans were developed collaboratively and reflected people’s consent and preferences. They were person-centred and included people’s characteristics, beliefs, and interests, such as hobbies, likes, and dislikes.

People and their representatives 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.

Support plans included details about important life changes, including transitions in care and people’s end of life considerations.