Your Life (Guildford)

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 inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained 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.

People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, and emotional needs and their preferences about how their support was provided. The care people received was regularly reviewed and people’s views about their support were listened to and acted on.

Staff told us they received enough information about people’s individual needs before they began to support them. They said the management team provided any additional information they needed for clarification. One member of staff told us, “I receive clear information before supporting a resident, including their care plan, risk assessments, preferences, and any specific health or mobility needs. If anything is unclear or changes, I ask for clarification so I can provide safe, person‑centred support.”

Staff said the management team reviewed people’s needs if they reported these had changed or they did not have time to provide the care people needed in the scheduled visit time. One member of staff told us, “If a resident’s needs increase or a call consistently requires more time, I report this so the rota and care plan can be reviewed to ensure support remains safe and effective.”

The provider understood people’s diverse health and care needs, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us they were supported by a consistent team of staff who understood their needs and preferences about their care. Relatives confirmed their family members received their care from staff who knew their needs well. One relative told us, “What is nice is the regularity [of staff]. In the past the staff changed quite often but now I am familiar with all their faces and they know me.”

Staff told us their knowledge of people’s needs ensured they were able to provide personalised care in the way people preferred. One member of staff said, “Our knowledge of [people using the service] is really excellent, and this helps us when we are delivering care and enables us to personalise care.”

Staff communicated with one another effectively, which helped ensure people received well-coordinated, consistent care. One member of staff told us, “We communicate well and often as a team and as individuals, and this helps with meeting [people’s] needs well.”

People had access to appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to their individual needs. People’s communication needs were discussed with them at their initial assessments and, where necessary, reflected in their care plans.

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard policy which had been used to identify the most appropriate means of communication for people. The Accessible Information Standard sets out how providers and commissioners of NHS and publicly funded adult social care services should ensure disabled people and people with impairments or sensory loss can access and understand information.

The PIR stated, ‘We have used [the policy] to identify service users with specific communication needs, for instance due to hearing and sight impairments, physical, mental, cultural, or other individual needs, therefore understanding their preferred method of communication.’ The PIR confirmed that information could be made available in alternative formats including large print, Braille, audio recording, or in a different language.

People had access to the information they needed about their care and support. People told us it was important for them to know in advance which member of staff would be providing their care. They said the provider ensured this information was provided.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support.

People were encouraged to give feedback about their care at reviews and spot checks carried out by the management team. The provider had distributed a customer survey for the first time in 2025 and the registered manager told us the provider also contacted people by telephone to hear their views.

Relatives told us that having a duty manager on site at all times meant they could discuss any issues related to their family members’ care when they needed to. One relative said, “I see someone every time I visit so I can always discuss the little things. I would feel very able to raise anything I had a worry about.”

The provider had a complaints procedure which set out how any complaints would be managed. None of the people we spoke with had complained but all said they would feel comfortable doing so. A relative told us, “We have never had any complaints but I am confident they would listen to any concerns.”

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

Leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people in accessing care and support. The provider used feedback to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing care.

All staff received training on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and used this knowledge to ensure people did not experience discrimination and their rights under the Equality Act 2010 were respected.

People’s care and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights. People’s experiences were listened to and acted on to improve care. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

People told us staff adapted the support they provided to ensure they experienced the outcomes they wished for. For example, one person had previously been very independent and needed one visit each week. Following a fall and discharge from hospital, the person needed 4 visits a day. As the person’s recuperation progressed, the number of visits they received had recently decreased again.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they would have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People had opportunities to discuss and record their wishes about the support they would need towards the end of their lives if they chose.

Relatives told us they were able to contribute their views when their family members’ care was being planned and reviewed. They said staff were receptive to ideas and suggestions they had about their family members’ care and support.

The service was not providing end of life care at the time of our assessment but had done so in the past. In 2025 staff had supported a person who wished to be discharged from hospital to receive end of life care at home. Staff worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals including a GP and district nurses to ensure the person was able to return home as per their wishes.