Dolphin Homes Ltd Supported Living Services Office

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 has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

Some people were not always supported to eat healthily. We reviewed food intake for some people. We found people’s food intake was not always consistently recorded. The food intake for some people was unhealthy, their diet contained a lot of processed foods and did not form a balanced diet. We reviewed a menu which did not meet the requirements of a healthy balanced diet. We reviewed another menu for another person which was more balanced.

People were not always supported to engage in activities that supported their social and mental wellbeing. We reviewed people’s daily support notes. We noted some people were rarely involved in meaningful activities and only went out a few times in a month.

Some relatives we spoke with also raised concerns about the amount of processed foods given to their relative. They also raised concerns about the lack of activities for their relative. They shared with us activities their relatives had been previously engaged in and had enjoyed. We spoke with the registered manager about this, and they devised an action plan which detailed improving people’s diets and activities.

Some care plans were person centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up, what time they went to bed and what they wanted to wear.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives confirmed people were supported to attend routine and emergency appointments with a variety of healthcare professionals.

Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act.The registered manager gave us an example of where some desensitisation work had been completed to help alleviate a person’s anxieties around attending specific medical appointments. This helped to remove some of the barriers to care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs and preferences were clearly recorded in care plans.

People had communication aids in place, including electronic tablets and communication boards. Numerous easy read documents were available and had been used. This meant people could make their needs and wishes known to staff.

The provider had policies in place to ensure information could be shared in different formats, should this be required.

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

They involved people in decisions about their day-to-day care and told them what had changed as a result.

People living in the home were asked for their views in a variety of formats throughout the year, these included in daily conversations, meetings with their keyworkers, and through surveys. We reviewed people’s daily support notes and noted people’s decisions were respected. During a meeting, 1 person had chosen what their personal goal was for the year ahead. This meant people were involved and their views were sought and listened to.

The registered manager told us, where needed they engaged the use of advocacy services to ensure people were heard.

The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against.

Each person had a hospital passport in place. This could be shared with other professionals to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system. We reviewed these documents and noted areas where additional information could be added to aid other professionals supporting the person. The provider was responsive and added this information immediately.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone who needed them. Staff understood how the Equality Act applied to their role.

The registered manager told us, “We speak up if people are not treated as they should be. We have very competent staff who will speak up and if there is a barrier we will challenge this.”

People were not always 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.

Although end of life care was not required at this time, we found some people’s end of life plans contained minimal details which did not include how a person would want to be supported at the end of their life. This meant the provider had not considered people’s future and end of life planning to ensure if people’s health were to deteriorate, staff would know how people wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives.

We reviewed evidence where some relatives had stated they did not wish to talk about this sensitive subject. The registered manager told us, the provider had discussed this topic at a family forum to discuss how this could be moved forward. They told us a new form had been devised, but this had not yet been implemented across the supported living services.