Sesame

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

People felt involved in their care and had opportunities to talk to staff about their support should they wish to do so. Where people were not able to take an active role in coordinating their care, staff shared care plans and risk assessments with relatives to review and comment. Relatives were involved in best interest meetings and staff sought their advice or opinions before making decisions on behalf of their relations.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

The provider had developed a range of opportunities for people and their relatives to express their views through regular reviews, meetings, and surveys. Support plans identified people's communication needs and provided guidance on how people could be supported to understand any information provided. The provider had created several easy read documents which enabled the sharing and understanding of information. For example, easy read information was available in terms of complaints, safeguarding, and keyworker meetings.

Staff told us people were allocated a ‘keyworker’ who was responsible for consulting with people and their relatives about their care and whether they felt they were being supported in the way they wished. Keyworkers met with people each month, specifically to gain their feedback and identify any changes. One staff member said, “Keyworker meetings are an opportunity to enable people to be more in control of their lives.” Staff had a good understanding about people’s preferred methods of communication such as social stories, PEC (Picture Exchange Communication) cards, observing body language, gestures, and facial expressions. Staff described how they used this knowledge to support people to make choices and share their views. The development of ‘Hospital passports’ helped other health and social care professionals to understand people’s preferred methods of communication.

People who wished to share their views with us told us they felt involved in their care and had opportunities to talk to staff and the registered manager about their care and support. One person said, “I sit down with my key worker and chat about my support, how I’m feeling and plan things I would like to do.” Where people were not able to take an active role in coordinating their care, relatives told us the service communicated well, shared care plans and risk assessments for them to review and comment. One relative said, “Staff always keep us updated regarding referrals or appointments.” Another said, “We are currently working on an updated communication plan.”

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.