Bognor Regis

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 service 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 services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way and governance of the service.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They did not work in partnership with people to live ordinary lives. People’s voices, personal preferences and wishes were not always reflected or explored within their care plans. People’s tenancy rights were not being upheld, and people’s autonomy was often overlooked. People did not have any control over who they lived with or who provided their support. We visited a person who shared their home with people who had quite dissimilar needs and abilities to them. The behaviour of other tenants and their visitors impacted negatively on the person. In response to our feedback, the provider sought professional advice about how to address the concerns we had identified.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not ensure people knew their rights including those relating to their tenancy. There was no clear separation between the care provider and landlord. This was because the care provider was also the landlord for the supported living properties operating under a separate company name. People’s tenancies did not outline people’s right to choose a different care provider without losing their tenancy. We identified issues with the legal status of a person’s tenancy. The provider was asked to rectify the tenancy agreement and provide clarity on the way the tenancy arrangements were set up. In response to our feedback the provider sought professional advice about how to address the concerns identified.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s accessibility needs were taken into consideration including mobility and communication. People were provided with 1-1 staff so they could attend health appointments safely and have consultations and outcomes explained to them at a level and pace they understood. People’s care records evidenced appointments with multidisciplinary healthcare professionals.

People were not always supported in line with ‘Right support, right care, right culture’. Staff had received training in equity and diversity but did not always support people in a non-discriminatory way. People did not always have complete choice or control over their lives. People were not always consulted about the way they received their care or what happened in their home. This included staff only signage around their home and staff sleeping in the service when they were not on duty. Local authority led assessments enabled people to have increased staffing to access community facilities safely. One person was supported to work in a charity shop three times a week. This is something the person enjoyed and valued. Another person participated in media activities through an organisation providing inclusive social activities for people with a learning disability. People used public transport and visited places of interest to them such as museums, church, and local shops.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.