Support for Living Limited - 37 Barlby Road

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. The last rating for this key question was requires improvement.

At this assessment the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 assessed people’s needs and choices so that care could be provided in a person-centred way. The assessments were comprehensive and considered people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Many people had used the service for a long time. Staff regularly reassessed their needs to make sure planned care reflected these needs. These were regularly reviewed, and people were supported to try new community activities.

The provider ensured people received evidence-based care and treatment. Staff undertook a range of training, including training about how to support people with a learning disability and autism.

Staff told us their induction and training were useful and helped them to understand their roles and responsibilities. Their comments included, “Induction was quite good, did shadowing for a week or so; training was suitable and if I was a new person in care, it covered all the boxes.” Two other staff members told us that they were encouraged to take up additional training for their personal development.

Staff relationships were not always cohesive. Team meetings took place monthly and staff had an opportunity to discuss issues that concerned them. However, we were told by numerous staff members that there were unresolved issues within the team. They believed this impacted on the effectiveness of the team.

We discussed this with the provider who had put plans in place to address these issues.

Staff had a handover of information each time there was a shift change. This included discussing individual people and the service.

Staff worked well with external professionals. Most health professionals told us staff worked effectively with them. However, others noted a lack of creativity in addressing health concerns. The staff team made referrals to different services when they identified people had a specific need. There was evidence of regular communication with these professionals and that staff followed their guidance and direction.

The provider made sure people received the support they needed to stay healthy and well. We found hospital passports were available to guide other staff in how to communicate with people at the service.

Staff were supporting people at the service to manage and oversee complex health conditions, and they were doing this effectively.

Staff made sure people had prompt access to healthcare and a healthcare worker told us the service had “Good connection with the health service; staff follow advice they are given and staff are proactive in raising issues.”

There was close working with external healthcare professionals to make sure people received the support they needed across a wide range of needs.

Staff monitored people’s wellbeing. In more recent months, the service monitored people’s weights and took remedial action when necessary.

Care plans were reviewed regularly and staff worked to a key worker system, so understood people’s needs and choices well.

The provider obtained consent for decisions about people’s care. Staff at the service understood the potential for individuals to make decisions and supported them in day to day decision making. All the people living at the service were subject to supervision as set out in legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Deprivation of Liberty safeguard applications were in place.

Staff told us that whilst people living at the service did not use words to communicate, they found ways to offer choices and understood about their preferences.