Kings Lynn Supported Living

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People's needs had bee assessed and we were assured that staff knew people well and were able to communicate their needs effectively. People had received a range of assessments and were supported to access medical professionals. for example lessons had been learnt from a recent incident, and one person was being supported to access the psychiatrist. People's care plans and picture plans were stored within their bedrooms and staff asked for permission from people before accessing the bedrooms. We observed staff working together as a team and communicating with with people. One person at the service was subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLs) and this had all been applied for and granted. Mental capacity assessments were not always completed or in date, but the provider was in the process of completing new care plans that incorporated all the mental capacity assessments.

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.

Staff showed understanding of the needs of the people supported and had received the right training. Support was organised for people to access services and staff knew what they were doing on any given day. People had access a range of activities and were not tied down to the same activities as everyone else. People's needs were assessed prior to moving into the service, and the service manager ensured that people were suitable for the placement. By doing several visits and overnight stays, it gave the people the opportunity to know each other and give their views on the potential new housemate.

We were assured staff understood people well and were able to communicate effectively. Staff worked with people to assess the risks associated with their day to day activities. Staff knew peoples abilities and ensured a right balance of support and independence for each person. We observed that there was enough staff to support people's needs.

The provider worked well with external providers. We were told by one external partner; "We worked well in trying to ensure the person settled well and adapted to the new environment and identifying her interests and supporting her achieve what’s meaningful to her. Communication is good from the provider and they updated each time and they did attend the meetings as requested. The provider works well with other providers involved in the care for people such as day services".

People had picture plans that had been developed with them, and provided a quick snapshot of their needs for any new staff and current staff. Medication folders and support plans were stored in peoples bedrooms to protect their confidentiality. Daily records had not been completed consistently over both services, but during our second site visit, there had been a marked improvement in recording. People had their annual medical review and medicines were reviewed regularly.

People told us that they felt the staff knew them well and were able to support them effectively. One person told us that " X has worked with me for a long time. she listens to me when I am worried, and I trust her. She is like family to me". We saw evidence of people being supported to access health services.

Staff showed understanding of the needs of the people supported and had received the right training. Support was organised for people to access services and staff knew what they were doing on any given day.

The manager and team managers had a good understanding of the health needs of people and we saw evidence of future planning for appointments and evidence of this being known to the staff team. There was effective communication and a good handover process to ensure information was distributed in a timely fashion and issues dealt with promptly.

People told us that they had monthly meetings to discuss issues within their home. We found that one person who preferred not to join the group meeting had a monthly one to one meeting. People's relatives were involved in their lives and there was good communication with the staff team.

Staff told us there was a rota which took into account peoples needs. Staff told us there were always enough staff, flexibility and great support and teamwork. We observed staff communicating well with each other and working as a team. Staff were well recruited and all brought something different into the team. Staff told us that sometimes it took a long time to recruit new staff where there were vacancies, but they were kept informed of any recruitment drives by the manager.

We had positive feedback from external partners. One person told us "We have met most of the support team and we find them all to be approachable and professional. The manager is easy to talk to and the service users’ best interests are first and foremost for her and this is fed down to her team. All in all, we feel that our relationship is positive and productive".

Rotas and staff allocation boards were in place showing how people got their shared and individual hours. Staff holidays were planned in advance. The service worked well with the GP surgeries and other health professionals. We saw evidence of involvement of multidisciplinary teams in shaping the support people received. We saw evidence that recommendations from the Quality Management Officer had been implemented and were being embedded.

People were supported to do a weekly shop for themselves, and to cook for their housemates. One person told us that they liked to shop for healthy options and this was reflected in their picture plan. One person who recently moved into the service had embarked on a weight loss journey that has seen her shed over two stone in six months. This achievement has improved her health and boosted her confidence, adding to the overall sense of empowerment she now feels. People were active and took part in a range of activities away from their home.

Staff told us that they supported people to see the relevant professionals, and these were booked in advance. Staff organised for people to attend foot care and dentist appointments. We saw staff supporting one person to cook a healthy meal for their housemates. Staff told us that when they went out shopping with people, they gave advise and directed them on what was healthy, but ultimately gave them the choice to buy what they preferred.

There was a good oversight of people's health needs. We saw communication between the provider and other health services aimed at monitoring and improving the health of the people within the service.

One person was prescribed thickened fluids and fluid intake was being recorded on a fluid chart within their daily records, however, there was no evidence documented of exact fluid measurement. Daily records were not often completed which meant critical records of people's appointments were missed. There had been a significant improvement between our visits and the manager and team managers were focused on driving this improvement.

People had busy weekly schedules with a range of activities planned. People told us that they enjoyed their activities and one person was keen to show us their achievement certificates and medals. One person who had recently moved into one of the locations had been supported to go from being reserved and keeping to themselves, to participating, and joining their housemates for meals and activities out.

There were regular team meetings and tenant meetings which allowed staff to identify and act upon any issues. We saw evidence that the provider worked collaboratively with external partners to improve outcomes for people.

Care plans, picture plans and risk assessments captured the needs of the people. Some plans were already on the new paperwork the provider was putting in place, but others were still on the older template and had not been updated. People's changing needs were captured within these documents, and the provider was committed to moving everyone onto the new paperwork within a short space of time.

One person within the service was subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) and this had been applied for and granted. People told us that they were involved in making decisions about their life, and also took active part in their support planning. We found that people had keys to their home and were supported to keep their home safe.

Staff had received training in DoLS and there was information around the service. Staff were familiar with people’s communication styles and conversed with people in a way that was appropriate. Staff told us of least restrictive practices like letting people open the door to their home where they had the ability to, rather than do it for them. One person had been supported to build their confidence to walk to the day centre independently. Staff we spoke to were not confident in telling us how they applied the Mental Capacity Act in their practice. However we observed staff enabling people to make their own choices.

Some mental capacity assessments were in place for decisions and showed what had been assessed, who was involved and what the outcome was. However we saw other examples that were generic and had not been tailored to specific decisions. Some support plans detailed how people were supported for activities, however there was a lack of recorded risk assessments associated with those activities.