Aiding Independence

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 Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 support choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s support plans were written in ways people could understand, including pictures and symbols to help people understand what they were doing during the day. For example, when someone needed prompting to brush their teeth, a picture was included of someone brushing their teeth.

Staff described to us how people communicate their needs and preferences. Some people were anxious when meeting new staff, strategies had been agreed with the person around how they would share their wishes until they were confident to chat with staff.

People showed us photographs of the activities they had taken part in and explained to us what they had done and how they had enjoyed it. They told us they regularly attended day services where they took part in different activities and spent time with their friends.

The provider understood the diverse health and support needs of people and their local communities, so support was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked with local agencies to meet people’s diverse needs. They supported people to take part in a range of activities that promoted social interaction, engagement, and skill development. People attended work experience placements, local day centres and fulfilled voluntary roles in the local communities. Each person had an individualised plan tailored to their interests and goals, and staff helped them follow these programmes.

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

All the information people needed was provided to them in ways they could understand. Documents about the service, such as the service user handbook included photographs of the registered manager and provider, so people knew who to speak to if they had any questions or worries. When people received important information from the funding authority about changes to their contribution, staff had translated this into a format which was easy for people to understand including symbols and easily accessible language.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their support. Staff involved people in decisions about their support and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they did not have any concerns or complaints about the service and were confident to share any concerns they had. Relative’s comments included, “If I did, I know who to speak too” and “They always ask me for my views”.

Staff knew the process to follow if they received a complaint from a person or relative and were confident to share these with leaders.

The provider made sure people could access the support they needed when they needed it.

Staff and leaders explored how people could achieve their goals, including taking part in activities, maintaining friendships and relationships and taking part in activities the rest of the community enjoyed. This included supporting people to spend time their boyfriend or girlfriend and going on dates. People attended local nightclubs and festivals which they enjoyed.

When people’s needs changed the leadership team worked with people’s social workers to ensure enough hours were commissioned to provide the support people needed to remain safe and well. The leadership team deployed additional staff to meet the person’s needs whilst assessments were being completed to make sure people always received the support they required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their support, support and treatment in response to this.

One person had demonstrated to staff they were no longer happy sharing a house with their house mates. Staff had taken the time to listen to the person and discuss ways they could help them to be happy. They had offered the person the option to move in with another person they already knew. They had made sure the person understood the choices available to them and had provided an easy read document for the person to refer to if they were anxious or needed reassurance. This included pictures of the house, the friend they would be living with and the registered manager and provider who they could speak with for support. The move had been successful, and the person told us they were enjoying their new home. Their relative said, “They were having a few problems with their previous housemates. Losing their temper. They’re fine now. Getting on a lot better”.

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.

People and their relatives had been supported to plan for big changes in their life, including moving out of the family home into independent living. The staff and leadership team had worked with a person and their family to plan an important move. Plans had been followed to make the transition in small steps at the person’s pace. The transition had been successful, and we observed the person appeared settled and got on well with staff and their housemates.