Independent Supported Living and Disabilities Ltd Also known as ISLAD

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 did not always ask people and their relatives for feedback in different ways to review and improve care, and keep people engaged where possible. The provider could not demonstrate they were aware of the potential barriers and challenges people may face. The provider did not ensure staff listened to people and tailored their care and support as required. People were not always supported to follow their interests or goals.

This service scored 71 (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.

We were not assured people were empowered by the provider and staff to give their views and understand their rights, including planning and co-ordinating their care and support with those that mattered to them. Although one person told us the staff asked for their opinion, but they also added that there were arguments amongst other people or the staff team. Relatives did not always feel the staff made required, reasonable adjustments to ensure their people's care and support needs could be met. Relatives told us they were not consulted about people’s care needs or preferences, and that communication “was worse than poor.” There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate the provider proactively sought out ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experience, act on information about people's experiences and outcomes and allocate resources and opportunities to achieve equity in experiences.

The manager told us they supported people with their requests and communication needs daily. The manager said they also provided surveys to people and supported them to complete it. We asked the manager how they ensured accessible information standard was followed to support people to receive information they could understand that would help with managing their care and support. However, the manager was not able to answer this without prompting. The information they provided did not reflect what people’s records noted and support they required to communicate. The manager told us they had an equality and diversity policy that staff would read. But they were unable to provide any further comments about how they and the staff team ensured they reviewed and discussed topics such discrimination and inequality to ensure people were not disadvantaged to give their views and understand their rights. Staff we spoke with told us they felt people were “supported by staff doing their best, working very hard”, and they did not believe there were barriers to people receiving care, support and treatment. Staff told us peoples’ views were sought regularly, “[The manager] always interacts with the service users, she is always communicating with them, through [The manager] coming on the floor, coffee mornings, advocacy meetings, they tell us everything that happens.”

The provider did not have a clear and effective system in place to ensure peoples’ feedback was received so people could be involved in the review and management of the service and the way it was run. There was no further clear analysis or action plan from the surveys to show how they used the feedback to develop the service and drive improvements. People had monthly tenants’ meetings however it was not clearly recorded if any meaningful feedback was gathered to support the review the quality of service provided, discuss and support any further improvements. We reviewed recent quality audits, which did not include any further reviews of peoples’, staffs’ and other stakeholders’ experiences and involvement. This did not help the provider to identify if any improvements were needed based on peoples’ and others feedback. The provider did not demonstrate they had clear process to ensure they regularly reviewed and worked with people and other stakeholders to help oversee how they ensured equality and human rights, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

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.