St Anne's Community Services - York DCA

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

We identified a continued breach of person-centred care. Some activities that were beneficial to people had not been accessed and alternatives had not been considered. Although some goals were in place for people, they were not always meaningful. There was no robust commitment to increasing people’s skills. The environment had not been adapted to fully meet people’s sensory needs at the time of our visit to the service. This all had the potential to impact on people’s quality of life, and further actions were needed to support people to live as fulfilling a life as possible. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s immediate needs, but not about people’s longer-term aspirations. Relatives had told us communication had improved and family meetings were taking place. Verbal recordings of key information for people using the service were not yet in place although this was planned. There was no evidence that people had experienced any discrimination or inequality, and staff had received training in this area.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive fully person-centred care. Some activities that people were known to enjoy and benefit from, had not taken place. Where it was not possible to do an activity that people wanted to do due to external factors, alternatives had not been explored. Although some goals were in place for people, these were not meaningful and had not been created in collaboration with people themselves. There was no robust commitment to increasing people’s independence and life skills. The environment had not been adapted to fully meet people’s sensory needs at the time of our visit to the service. This all had the potential to impact on people’s quality of life, and further actions were needed to support people to live as fulfilling a life as possible.

Staff and leaders spoke about the plans in place and spoke about improvements in providing person-centred care. However, staff feedback showed they had not explored alternatives to activities or fully committed to supporting people with activities they were known to enjoy and benefit from. Staff and leaders spoke about this being an ongoing piece of work and further improvements were required.

Staff knew people’s individual needs and responded appropriately to immediate needs. People were given choice throughout the day. However, people were not always supported holistically. There was no evidence of meaningful goals that people were working towards or the learning of life skills. No future or long-term aspirations were documented or being explored.

People were supported to access other services where needed. People were waiting for assessments from occupational therapy and the local learning disability service, but these referrals had been made. People were supported to attend medical appointments.

Leaders and staff told us how they had applied for funding for more 2:1 hours so the service would be able to safely support people more often in the community, which in turn would help them to do more activities and lead more fulfilling lives.

No concerns were raised from partners about people accessing other services.

Hospital passports were in place to support people to access other services smoothly and to ensure important information was passed on. Appropriate referrals to other services were made and people were supported to attend appointments. Advice from professionals was incorporated into people’s support plans and passed over to staff in handovers and meetings.

Relatives told us communication had improved. Comments included, “There is a lot of better communication, [staff are] engaging with us a lot more” and, “I do feel involved, we are having more meetings. The deputy manager has asked me to be involved with the support plans which is good, I have been engaging with them a lot more, helping them to do different things”.

Leaders told us that they intended to create verbal recordings of the key points of people’s support plans so that people could listen to them, and help people understand their support plan. This had not yet been implemented.

Processes were in place to involve relatives and they spoke positively about this. However, the provider was not fully meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the AIS. The AIS 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. Information was available for relatives, but verbal recordings of key information for people using the service (or other alternative accessible formats) were not yet in place.

Relatives told us communication had improved and the management team organised family meetings to ensure involvement and an opportunity to provide feedback. However, different ways of gathering feedback from people, whether directly or indirectly, had not been fully explored.

Leaders spoke about having an open-door policy and the new management team ensured that there were ample opportunities for relatives to be involved.

No recent complaints had been received. Systems were in place to handle complaints. The management team was accessible should anyone want to complain. However, whilst systems were in place to manage complaints, there was limited evidence of innovation or best practice in relation to encouraging people’s feedback and views about the service. Information about how to raise concerns was not in an accessible format for people using the service.

People had lived at the supported living property for many years and knew their way around the building; the building was accessible for them. People were supported to access other services by staff who knew their needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs when accessing other services. This information was contained in their support plans and staff used this information to ensure that services were accessed in a way which met people’s needs and which caused as little distress to people as possible.

Hospital passports were in place to support people to access and transition smoothly into other services. The provider made appropriate referrals as and when needed.

There was no evidence that people had experienced any discrimination or inequality. Relatives did not raise any concerns in this regard.

Staff had received equality and diversity training, and this was regularly refreshed.

The provider completed an Equality Impact Assessment for all policies within the organisation, which ensured anyone with protected characteristics under the Equality Act had been considered and were not disadvantaged by the organisational policies. The provider also worked with partners to prevent barriers to care due to disabilities, by supporting and enabling people to access relevant health services and appointments.

The provider had documented people’s family circles to ensure staff knew who to contact for support with people’s future life decisions.

Staff had received end-of-life care training.

Policies were in place should planning for end-of-life care be required.