Rapid Review & Resettlement

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 received person centred care and were supported to complete activities and interests of their choosing. Staff supported goal setting and achievement and were mindful of the importance of ensuring people lived rich and fulfilled lives. Information was provided to people in a way they could understand. People and their relatives views were sought regularly, and they were encouraged to get more involved in the service and how it was run. Staff received training to ensure equality, diversity and people’s protected characteristics were respected.

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.

People received person centred care, which was designed around their needs and wishes. People’s likes, dislikes, life history and what was important to them was gathered as part of the assessment and care planning process and used to generate individual support plans. People’s daily schedule was based around their choices and how they wanted to spend their time. People were supported to generate and achieve goals. A number of these were based around information gathered during the assessment and care planning process, specifically the ‘what’s important to me’ and the ‘good day’ and ‘bad day’ sections.

Staff knew what person centred care meant and how to ensure this was provided. Staff comments included, “Person centred care is putting the person in the middle of all care and support needs, decisions and outcomes. We provide this by taking the persons wants and wishes into account as well as the parents, doctors and any other people involved in that person’s life to ensure they live a rich and fulfilled life,” and, “Treating the person receiving care with dignity, compassion and respect, tailoring care to suit individual needs.”

We observed examples of staff providing care in line with people’s needs and wishes. For example, for one person, it was important to them that staff repeated back to them anything they said, to show the staff member had understood what the person had said. We observed both staff and management doing this during our on-site visits.

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.

People’s communication preferences were included in their care plans. Staff ensured these were followed.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication. 

The service user guide was available in an easy read style, with simple text and imagery used. The provider had up to date policies and procedures in place relating to ‘supporting communication and sensory needs’. These had been adhered to in the creation of care documentation and information for people.

People and relative's views and opinions were sought, and they were directly involved in the care and support provided. One relative told us, “They [staff] are keeping me informed all the time, sending videos, photos about what [relative] is doing. I have been involved in the care planning. We are reviewing the care plan tomorrow. I have had text updates, telephone calls since [relative] has been there, so my feeling is they are so well supported. I would say I am very involved.”

The provider sought views through ongoing communication, annual questionnaires and social events, which families were invited to. A relative stated, “I have been asked for and given feedback. I have been to 2 family fun days, where we spoke with staff and with other families.” Family surveys were circulated annually in October. These consisted of 15 questions which included if relatives felt their loved one was safe, was treated with dignity and respect, supported to achieve wants and wishes and if concerns were listened to and actioned. The results from the last survey were largely positive, with the majority of relatives having no concerns with all aspects of the care and support provided.

The provider had also set up a ‘family advocacy group’, who met quarterly. The meeting was an opportunity for families to be involved in ensuring the provider was providing the most effective care it could. Families were invited to give constructive feedback and were informed of what actions were being taken to drive improvements. Families were also invited to complete elements of the provider’s training programme, to better understand how staff were taught to meet people’s needs. Advocacy group members were also offered the opportunity to take part in the staff interview process. This allowed relatives to be directly involved in determining who provided support to their loved ones. The provider also had a number of processes in place for capturing staff feedback. This included an annual staff survey and an annual cultural review, when staff’s views on the culture of the service were sought.

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.

Relatives had identified the support and opportunities available and told us they were keen for their loved one’s to remain in the area longer term, ideally with the support of the provider. One relative told us, “The commissioners are looking at whether [relative] can stay in south Manchester because there is so much going on here for a young man. We are working on [relative] staying in this area with the same provider.”

The provider understood the inequalities and barriers faced by people with a learning disability and autistic people. As such, they tried to ensure people using the service were supported to complete activities and interests of their choice and were supported to access and integrate into the local and wider community.

Staff completed training in equality and diversity and had access to the provider’s policies, with reminders given during team meetings for staff to access and read these policies.

No-one we spoke with had been actively involved in planning for the end of life, however, relatives told us they were happy with the support provided and were involved in discussions about their relative’s care.

The provider was not actively providing end of life care, nor providing support for people for whom this would be required. The provider supported people to plan for important life changes, with the involvement of their relatives, so they had enough time to make important decisions about their future.

Staff completed training in basic life support and end of life care, as part of their induction and mandatory training programme, to ensure they had the necessary knowledge should this be needed.