Ordinary Life Project Association - 5 St Margaret's Gardens

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 assessed 1 quality statement in this key question. The registered manager was not ensuring people were receiving their funded support nor did they act to seek funding for further support when 2 people experienced changes in their support needs.

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.

Peoples relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and responsive when they asked for changes to how people were supported. They also told us the longer term members of staff knew people very well and were responsive to their needs.

The registered manager did not have a clear understanding of the need to seek further support from the local authority if people's support needs changed temporarily. They told us they did not seek extra funding as they did not feel it would be made available. They were using one person's commissioned hours to support other people in the house which meant the person was not receiving the support they were identified as needing.

The provider had paperwork and systems in place to gather information about people's needs. However the care plans and information they had was not current or in line with people's support needs which meant the current system was not effective in ensuring people have positive outcomes. One person was not receiving the commissioned hours of support they were entitled to. This meant that they were not able to access the community to do activities of their choice as regularly as they wished. One person was not begin supported in line with their guidelines, this meant they were at risk of being treated in an unfair way by staff. Some people had experienced changes to their support needs but this had not been addressed promptly by the registered manager which meant they were at risk of not being supported appropriately.

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.