The Cube Disability Ltd

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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Feedback was sought from staff and people following the previous holidays and changes were made based on this. This included changes to accommodation booked. People’s relatives told us they had seen improvements. On previous holidays one person had returned with constipation as their food intake and continence care had not been monitored appropriately. On the holiday reviewed during this assessment their bowel care had been managed appropriately and they were free from constipation.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. There were procedures in place for staff to manage any emergencies that may have arisen. Before the holiday there was time for people, their relatives and carers and staff to get to know one another to ensure a smooth transition.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s relatives told us that previously information about the holiday had been provided in pictorial format, but this was not provided for the most recent trip. They told us that the service mostly communicated with the relative or carer via email or text message. This meant that relatives often had to adapt this information to be able to communicate it to people in an accessible format. Staff told us that, on a day-to-day basis, they adapted the communication styles they use to meet individual’s needs. They used simple sentences, PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) for some people and didn’t overload people with information.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. We saw evidence in people’s care plans that they, and their relatives, were involved in decisions about their care. People’s relatives had mixed experiences of being asked for feedback. One person had received and returned a questionnaire following the trip. However, another relative had not received this but shared that they felt comfortable voicing any concerns, if these arose.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were offered holidays that they would be able to access. A relative told us that the person receiving support would have like to have gone to Disneyland this year but, at the time, The service was told that the trip would be inaccessible for wheelchair users. Since the first trip there this year, it was established that it would be accessible and so this holiday will be available to people who use wheelchairs users in the future.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Feedback was sought from staff and people following the previous holidays and changes were made based on this. This included changes to accommodation booked. People’s relatives told us they had seen improvements. On previous holidays one person had returned with constipation as their food intake and continence care had not been monitored appropriately. On the holiday reviewed during this assessment their bowel care had been managed appropriately and they were free from constipation.

People were 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. One person’s relative told us that the service was working with the person to help them to understand the changes involved in becoming an adult. People’s goals for the future were documented in their care plans.