SeeAbility - Aldershot Support Service

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 has remained 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.

Care plans were person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, people were supported with personal care in a way and at a time of their choosing to help reduce their anxieties.

People’s daily notes reflected they had a range of meaningful activities both inside and outside of their homes. During our on-site inspection visits we observed people’s accommodation was individually tailored to their needs, including ensuring outside space was safe.

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.

Relatives told us communication was good. They also gave us examples of the service working collaboratively with other professionals.

The registered manager gave us examples of when they had collaborated with other professionals to ensure care was joined up. They also told us some professionals visited people in their homes which helped alleviate some people’s anxieties. This helped remove some of the barriers to care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had communication aids in place, including electronic tablets and communication boards.

Easy read documents were available, and the provider evidenced how these had been used to support some people. For other people, where easy read documentation was not helpful, staff who understood their specific communication style were available to aid them. This meant people could make their needs and wishes known to staff.

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 using the service were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year, these included in daily conversations, meetings with their keyworkers, and through surveys. Where required, action plans were devised from these meetings and survey’s and were shared with people. This meant people’s views were listened to and drove improvement.

The registered manager told us, where needed they engaged the use of advocacy services to ensure people were heard. We reviewed evidence of when this had taken place.

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

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against.

Each person had a hospital passport in place. These included people’s individual risks and health conditions. They could be shared with other professionals to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

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.

Staff understood how the Equality Act 2010 applied to their role. They treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them. This meant people were less likely to experience discrimination.

The registered manager told us, “We want people to be listened to and their choices to be respected.” They shared with us an example of when they had needed to advocate for a person during a hospital visit.

People were not always 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.

Although end of life care was not required at this time, we found some people’s end of life plans contained minimal details which did not include how a person would want to be supported at the end of their life. This meant the provider had not always considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if people’s health were to deteriorate, staff would know how people wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. Following our inspection, the registered manager informed us they had already begun contacting relatives to arrange meetings to discuss adding this information to people’s end of life plans.