Joseph House

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 one quality statement from this key question and the overall score for this section has been determined using scores from the last inspection. During this assessment we identified people who used the service, especially those with learning disabilities, did not all have full access to their local communities despite high staffing levels. People’s goals and aspirations were captured in records, but the service was not always sufficiently proactive.

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.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were supported to lead fulfilling lives as members of their local community. One person told us, ‘[My relative’s] 1 to 1 is working well. They do go out regularly to town for coffee and shops, [they are] happy when [they are] out.’ However, another shared they wished their relative could go out more.

The service supported both younger and older people. Feedback about this was mixed with one relative saying the service met their young family member’s needs very well while another had reservations.

Staff told us they supported the people who used the service to take part in activities and experiences, both within the service and outside. However, when we asked for details, we found experiences were quite limited. Many people were living with complex needs which meant they would need a lot of support and staffing was in place for this. However, people seemed to spend a lot of time within the service and going for local walks, although not necessarily taking enough advantage of other opportunities the local area had to offer. One healthcare professional told us, ‘There is a high expectation that the service users will fit into the model they offer…. [My client’s] community access is limited, and not being able to verbalise what [they] want presents as very difficult. It’s a shame that they don’t offer [them] new opportunities.’

The registered manager and provider told us they had a strong commitment to ensuring people had a wide range of opportunities open to them. Records documented people’s likes, dislikes, goals and aspirations but people were not seen to be working towards these. Nobody was currently in paid or unpaid employment, relationships with people and groups outside the service were not routine (except family) and people were not routinely accessing their community in any meaningful way. We accepted this was a positive choice for some people but questioned if this was the case for all.

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.