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 remains good. This meant people’s needs were met.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were supported in a person-centred way. Care plans provided person-centred information. One care plan had not been updated to reflect the person’s current need. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would amend the care plan.

Relatives were happy with the care and support provided. One relative told us, “I believe I am [happy] yes.” Another relative commented, “Yes, I think so, [name of person] is alright, they seem happy enough.” One professional told us they thought staff provided 1 person a, “Good quality of life.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were 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. Communication tools were present in people’s homes.

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.

One person had told staff they wanted to go on a holiday; this had not been progressed by management due to the person’s staffing hours. The manager had not looked at alternative options to support the person. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would ensure the person was supported to arrange a holiday.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives on how involved they felt and if they were listened to. One relative told us, “No I’m not encouraged [to give my views], I have no idea.” Another relative commented, “Yes if something needs to be addressed.”

The service had a complaints policy. Relatives told us they had not raised any complaints with the service.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives regarding if they received quality assurance questionnaires. One relative told us, “Nothing no.” Another relative told us, “I received a questionnaire not sure who it was from.” 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.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People’s care plans included information relating to their goals, such as living more independently. At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone at the end of their life.