Pharos Supported Services

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 provider’s systems to ensure people were at the centre of their care were not always consistent or embedded across the service. There was a complaints system in place, but this had not been consistently implemented and followed. This was a breach of Regulation 16 (Receiving and acting on complaints) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 62 (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.

Some people told us they could speak to staff if they were not happy. One person told us they had been unhappy about something adding, “They [staff] sorted it out.” Another person told us they were unhappy with how a staff member had supported them and we shared this information with the provider during the assessment. Some people we met were not able to raise their concerns and were dependent on staff, relatives, and friends to do this on their behalf. We received mixed feedback from relatives about whether staff listened to them and acted on what they say. A relative told us, “Yes not that I have that much [to complain about], but if I voice my opinions they do listen.” Another relative told us “We’ve got a good relationship. I would mention if something’s not right. They [provider] act on or give me a reason why.” However, some relatives told us when they raised concerns, they were not satisfied with the response they received from the provider. We also received mixed feedback from relatives about whether they had been invited to give feedback about the service.

Staff told us they would listen to people and acted on any concerns raised and would escalate concerns when needed.

There was a complaints procedure in place, but this was not consistently followed by the provider. There had been an incident where a senior manager was instructed to complete an investigation into a complaint. When this had not been completed, action had not been taken by the provider to address this in line with their complaints policy. On another occasion, the provider had failed to record, investigate, or provide an outcome of a complaint. A further complaint had not been recorded in the provider’s complaint records and the complainant had not received an outcome to their complaint.

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.

Most people and their relatives spoke very positively about their care. Relatives told us the service supported people to maintain family relationships. A relative said, “They [person] are supported to stay in contact, I phone up regularly, they see (relative) on occasions, they phone me once a week and I pop up and see them once in a while.” Another relative told us their family member had their own mobile phone and they were constantly in touch with them.

The registered manager told us they were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services. Staff were enthusiastic about what people could achieve with the right support. We saw people were supported to do things they wanted to do and to promote their independence.

Some people’s support plans identified goals and aspirations, but this was not consistent for all. There were inconsistencies with care planning and risk assessment documentation across all the supported living properties.

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.