Affinity Trust - South West

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 been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to person centred care.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any changes in people’s needs.

People were not consistently supported in a person-centred way. Two people had personalised plans developed by health professionals, but staff were not following these. One person was unable to access the community due to delays in staff following up an appointment, and another was not consistently supported by their preferred staff, which their relative said impacted their wellbeing.

Care plans varied in quality, not all included person-centred information. Some people participated in planning sessions with key staff to explore their strengths, community connections, and personal goals. A support manager told us they had worked with people to review care hours to promote a more person-centred approach.

Feedback from relatives was mixed. One relative expressed concerns about inconsistent staffing and lack of experience, they told us they were very unhappy with the support provided. Another relative told us staff supported their family member “Extremely well” and knew “Exactly” how to meet their needs.

One professional told us they had discussions with staff who, “Demonstrated great person-centred care and empathy.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Not all staff had received specific training to enable them to understand the needs of the people they supported. This impacted the continuity and quality of care. There was not consistent joined up working, some care plans lacked information relating to people’s needs. People’s assessed needs were not consistently met.

The service supplied appropriate, information in formats that was tailored to individual needs. The service supported people to express their views and offered choices tailored to individual people using a communication method appropriate to that person. People’s care plans contained information about people’s individual communication needs. One relative told us, “When [name of person] communicates they [staff] pick up on it and support [name of person] to speak their views.” Throughout the assessment we observed staff communicating with people in their preferred method of communication.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives relating to how the service listens to and involved them. During the assessment 1 relative told us they had raised a range of complaints, and they were still not satisfied with their relative’s care. Another relative raised a range of concerns about the support their relative received. They told us this had been raised with a support manager on several occasions, and no action was taken. The registered manager told us this relative’s complaint had now been investigated, and action had been taken to resolve their concerns. Other comments from people’s relatives included, “Yes, I definitely feel listened to, I’m always contacted by phone or email” and “Yes more or less, I have to ask questions, and they respond.”

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives regarding quality assurance questionnaires. One relative told us, “I haven’t seen one no, I think it’s more informal.” Another relative told us, “I had a form asking about Affinity, don’t know where it came from. As a rule, we don’t get a lot of questionnaires. The first one was 6-9 months ago. We don’t usually get sent questionnaires about views.” The registered manager confirmed the current survey was in the process of being completed. They told us following a formal action plan would be created based on the feedback received. They also confirmed they were monitoring incoming responses to identify any immediate risks that required attention.

The service did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

One person had a change in their mobility needs. Staff had not acted promptly to ensure the person was assessed to safely leave their property. This was addressed during our assessment. Changing health needs were not always responded to in a timely way.

Reasonable adjustments were in place for people who needed them. Specific adaptations were in place in people’s homes to ensure they were able to safely mobilise.

Staff supported people to ensure they did not experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff told us how they had worked with health professionals to support a person to attend health appointments, where this had caused the person anxiety. One relative told us, “[Name of person] has a fear of needles, they [staff] supported them, it was brilliant.”

Staff received training in equality and diversity which gave them an awareness of barriers and discrimination which people may experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. Staff had spent time with people, finding out what their aspirations and goals were.

At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone at the end of their life. Some people had advance care planning information in their care plans, others did not.