Head Office Also known as Futures care

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 Good. At this assessment the rating 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 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 they were involved in decisions about their day‑to‑day care and support and said staff listened to them and respected their preferences. People described being supported in ways which reflected how they wanted to live their lives, including their routines, personal choices and how support was provided when their needs changed.

Staff demonstrated they adapted their approach based on people’s wishes and circumstances, which helped people feel in control and involved. Staff were observed with people and being responsive to their preferences. Staff were observed involving people in decisions about their care and support, and people were supported to have access to meaningful activities and experiences. One person told us, “I’m happy with support from the staff team and everyone that supports me.”

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 provider understood the service group they were supporting. Staff had a good understanding of each person’s needs and how to support them. The provider worked hard to ensure the needs of the local community were integrated into their business model. The provider worked with both local and out of county local authorities to support people. Any changes to people’s health or care needs were shared with staff at daily handover meetings. Staff or family members accompanied people to medical appointments to help advocate on their behalf.

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

People were supported to understand areas around their care and had communication passports and social stories in place. One person told us how they were presented with information in video format when they were not able to go somewhere in person. The service was working in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

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.

Relatives told us they were involved in supporting staff with assessments, reviews and developing care plans. A relative told us, “When my daughter moved to the organisation, I was involved with care plans, and I am invited to yearly review meetings.” Staff told us they had all the information they needed to enable them to support people effectively.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Leaders and staff had gaps in their understanding of discrimination and inequality which could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support, and this limited people’s access to services. Equity to professional services was inconsistent. The registered manager was receptive to our feedback and took steps to ensure equality was applied more consistently.

Care, treatment and support were sometimes delivered in ways which lead to inequalities in outcomes and barriers to care, treatment and support.

Staff and leaders did not always ensure people’s experience of using the service was equitable. Some people who may have benefitted from additional medical interventions were not assessed as needing specialist support. Some people were not afforded equality in experience and were placed at risk of harm. However, most people did receive a good standard of care from the provider and were not at risk, this was not equitable for everyone. The registered manager was receptive to our feedback and was going to review their systems and processes.

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 registered manager told us they were reviewing people’s goals to ensure the goals set would help improve their quality of life. They said these were in development with people.

People and their family members had been consulted about how they wanted to be supported at the end of their lives. Where people or family members had chosen not to have a discussion now, this had been recorded.