Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust

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

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and the communities served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisation to plan care. The service was inclusive and took account of children, young people and their families individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help children, young people and families access services. People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care promptly. It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff.

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.

Families contributed to creating care plans and attended multi agency meetings which centred around the needs of the young person. Meeting records showed needs and choices of care were considered when planning future care.

Staff told us the care plans were personal and specific to the needs of the young person. Staff told us time was given ahead of a visit to prepare and read care plans and to speak with families if needed. Staff felt a good relationship with families meant they could quickly respond to a young person’s changing needs. This was reflected within the care plan and updates to other care professionals through handovers and discussions with managers.

We attended meetings and observed care being provided. We saw consistent, compassionate, person-centred care where teams were cohesive. There was good evidence of collaborative working where teams were supportive with a strong focus on the young people and their families. There was good use of parents with lived experiences for workshops using feedback to inform and develop the service. We observed a Virtual Reality (VR) demonstration which was developed with the intention of reducing anxiety and fear around new settings or, for example, a medical treatment visit. The service worked with people with lived experiences to co-develop the VR experience which could be used to demonstrate a virtual tour of a ward or hospice so the young person would feel more familiar with an area prior to visiting.

Families felt the service worked well with other agencies. There were enough staff and often the same staff visited with oversight of care needs. This consistency was beneficial to the wellbeing of young people. Families felt staff worked flexibly and joined-up with other services to promote a consistent service.

Staff reviewed children’s needs and planned ahead to provide a continuous service and meet their care needs. When children and families moved home and to a different local authority, staff continued to monitor and provide a service until it was safe for their new team to take over their care. They were familiar with the family’s external care teams, such as hospital consultants, school nursing team and general practitioners and worked cohesively to ensure a way of working that was beneficial to the young person and family. Staff had extensive knowledge of processes around care provision and this enabled families to have as much independence as they could. These included sleep systems, specially adapted chairs and other care aides so young people could use facilities in the community and live a more fulfilling life.

Systems flagged when care records needed reviewing and updating. There was space to record conversations between agencies and from families and young people. Staff new to the service were provided with an effective induction programme and support to undertake their role. Rotas were in place for clinical input, safeguarding and other specialist requirements. Staff used participation groups to develop and co-create workstreams that made a positive contribution to the quality of services they provided.

Families felt the information shared with them was easy to understand. They received information on how to operate equipment which provided clear and transparent information. Families received training and support and were confident using the equipment provided. Families had access to a website which provided a self-service approach to helpful tools and a resources library.

Staff used systems which helped provide information for parents and families and supported understanding. Communication methods were tailored to the needs of the young person and their families. These can be language, communication and speech, deafness or mutism. Staff had access to resources that offered training and support to better understand the needs of the children and young people in their community. Staff used their skills and knowledge to monitor nonverbal cues from children and young people.

Information was shared with families in a way they understood. The systems used were enabled with a function that allowed the service to translate documents into the chosen language instantly. The service had many helpful resources available for families and young people to access. Some of these included support and resources about anxiety, autism and sensory processing, physical education tips and advice and Devon young carers support.

Families had provided feedback about the service by completing feedback surveys. Families were aware of the complaints process and were confident their concerns were taken seriously with changes made where possible. Staff invited parents to take part in workshops to share ideas and their experiences. This allowed parents with lived experience of the service to have the opportunity to shape the future way of working.

Staff told us they understood the complaints process and they were equipped to support young people and their families through the complaints process. Staff told us improvements were made as a result of complaints and concerns. These included assessment forms being integrated on to digital care plans.

Complaints were documented on a log and reviewed by managers for themes and trends. Action taken was audited for effectiveness. We reviewed an investigation which was thorough and included an action plan with appropriate improvements. Staff received feedback from complaints on a one-to-one basis, although the service had received minimal complaints related to their service or staff. Parent workshops and user by experience groups were used to review new changes and feedback to enable the service to grow. Staff were encouraged to offer innovative ideas which were shared with the leadership team.

Families were able to access the service using a range of referral routes which were reviewed by a single point of access team. The single point of access team reviewed each contact and responded to families in a timely way. Families felt access to the service was inclusive for their children and young people.

Staff offered a range of services using specialist skills and experience. This provided support for children of all ages who had physical needs, needed emotional support or specialist help. Specialist staff took part in a duty rota which was available for advice throughout the working week. Information about the services offered was provided on a website which explained what the service offered and how families could access it. This information was in a range of formats including videos, easy read information and telephone contacts.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.