The Kent Autistic Trust - 52a River Drive

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. t our last assessment we rated this key question Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. People did not have end of life care plans in place, however the manager put plans in place to address this. People received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. Staff worked closely with people’s families and others important to them to assist them to understand decisions they had made. The provider had a clear ethos for the service based on human rights, anti-discrimination and equity principles, and staff and people who used the service understood these.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. People’s care and support plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. For example, care plans included information about people’s history, their likes and dislikes and goal setting. People were supported to set goals and staff supported people to reach their goals, these could be long or short term. For example, one person’s goal was to take their plate to the kitchen without being prompted by staff. Staff told us the person had recently met this goal. Another person’s goal was to go away on holiday, staff were currently supporting the person to research where they wanted to go and when, this was recorded in the key worker meetings which were held regularly.

The provider had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were supported to overcomes barriers that prevented them from accessing certain types of healthcare. For example, one person had a phobia of needles which meant that vaccinations and blood tests were problematic. The staff team worked with a number of professionals including the GP and an associate practitioner with the Adult Learning Disability Service to start a desensitisation programme. The process took place over a number of months and staff used social stories to ensure the person was able to understand the process. The programme was successful and since the person has received all their vaccinations at their GP surgery. Staff worked with the GP surgery to ensure reasonable adjustments were put in place to ensure the person had choice and control at every appointment. The programme has meant the person has choice and access to vaccinations that can protect them from diseases and viruses. The staff and other professionals worked together and contributed to keeping the person safer and give them a chance to lead a heathier life.

Support plans and records were recorded in a number of different ways in line with people’s requirements for meaningful communication and decision-making, including in text and picture format. The provider met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Information was tailored to people’s needs, for example the provider had recently introduced digital technology for recording, this included things such as digital records for care planning and daily notes. Leaders at the service identified that some parts of the digital system were generic and not specific to the people they support. The leaders worked with the technology company to improve the system and make it work for the people they supported. For example, one person they support used adaptive cutlery, the leaders at the service adapted the digital system to ensure additional questions were built in so staff could capture this in the daily notes.

Staff worked closely with people’s families and others important to them to assist them to understand decisions they had made, and to advocate on their behalf when differences arose. People’s relatives told us, ‘They [staff] tell me when there is meeting about [person] and I can sit in on them’ and ‘If [person] has any appointments they always ring me’. People who had advocates to support them also gave positive feedback during the assessment, for example, ‘Every time and email or anything related to [persons] care, I was always copied into the email in case my involvement helped, or I was able to offer support’. People’s relatives told us they knew how to raise a complaint or a concern if they needed to. The service had not had any recent complaints and people’s relatives told us they did not have any need to complain or raise any concerns.

The provider had a clear ethos for the service based on human rights, anti-discrimination and equity principles, and staff and people who used the service understood these. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and understood how to put this into practise. The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, people were able to visit service such as the dentist or opticians regularly.

People were supported to feel empowered by staff to give their views and understand their rights. For example, staff had supported people to access community facilities and understand voting and the policies of different candidates so they could meaningfully participate in the recent general election. Staff understood it was important for the people they supported to exercise their rights and be a part of the community. Staff used accessible resources including easy read guides and social stories with pictures to help explain the process. The in-house positive behaviour support (PBS) lead and communication leads prepared social stories and videos to help achieve this. Workshops were set up in house by staff but carefully managed to ensure there was no element of bias. PBS staff and managers set up mock polling stations to give people the experience of voting in a safe environment. People were supported to have the opportunity to have their voice heard, regardless of their communication needs.

People did not have end of life care plans in place at the time of the assessment. The manager told us there had been some conversations involving people’s relatives and professionals; however, this was not documented. The provider had a death and bereavement policy in place and staff understood the importance of discussing this topic. Staff had recently supported a person through a difficult bereavement, this included using social stories, objects of reference and supportive conversations. Following the assessment the leaders at the service shared their plan on how they would approach this difficult topic with people and their families.