Shared Lives and Reablement Scheme

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.

This is the first assessment for this assessment service group under this location. This key question has been rated 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 care and treatment choices and they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff devised people’s risk assessments with them which meant they were involved in some aspects of their care planning. People said staff supported them in line with their preferences.

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 worked well with other services, for example, the hospital discharge team, other providers, and social care services. There was a business continuity plan in place which detailed what to do in the event of staff shortages, which supported continuity of care. People were supported by consistent care staff.

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

The registered manager told us they would put easy reads in place if needed. They commented, “We have worked with interpreters before to get information across. We also sometimes use objects of reference to try to engage with them.”

People knew how to contact the office if needed. There were ‘communication sheets’ in people’s files so that important information could be shared with families if needed.

Staff told us they received timely communication. One staff member commented, “We receive client's updates on the day, for example therapy updates, this is ideal, as we can implement these with clients.”

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 were able to contact the office when needed and knew how to raise a complaint. People told us they had no complaints. We saw evidence that the service sought feedback from people about the support they received.

We saw that complaints raised had been responded to appropriately and in line with the provider’s complaints policy.

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

The provider ensured people did not face any barriers to their care. The registered manager commented, “MDT’s are a really good place for us to touch base with other services regarding any barriers to care. If a person is self-neglecting, we would respect persons decision, but what we have done well is improve complete refusal by having conversations with people about risks associated with this.”

We saw examples of how the provider worked with other services to ensure they had access to different kinds of support, such as social support or long-term care services.

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 completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff discussed equality and inclusion during supervisions.

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 had ‘Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment’ [RESPECT] forms in place where required and these were added to people’s care planning information, so staff were aware of this.

This service did not support people at the end of their lives, where this need arose, people were referred to longer term care and support services.