Taylor Support Hub

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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relative’s felt their loved ones were well supported and people enjoyed time with staff. One relative said, “We gauge it how keen my relative is to go to an activity or see people, and they are very happy to go. My relative is always happy to go and when they come back.” Another relative said, “Staff definitely know my relative well. They know everything about my relative.”

A relative commented, “It has real difference to our lives where we know our relative is happy and it an enjoyable experience for my relative too.”

A relative said, “Staff just know my relative so well. They have taken so much time and care to get to know them. My relative is a complex vulnerable person and staff have taken time to get to know them.”

Staff were able to tell us about how they personalised their care for people, and staff clearly knew people’s needs. One staff member said, “[A person] will often ask to do something and then refuse it when we start. We try to allow for this by always having a plan B and will offer the person that as an alternative and let them choose.” Another staff member said, “Peoples care plans have good information about what helps them calm.”

Relatives fed back there was generally a core team of staff who knew people well and providing consistency for people. Breaks in accommodation in different places throughout the country gave people the opportunity to experience new things and integrate with communities. One relative said, “When on residential, it’s the same handful of staff who support that. Staff are handpicked for my relative, my relative needs staff who are up on energy.” Another relative said, “My relative is clearly being cared for while with them [staff]. In some respects, better than at school. It gives my relative a break from us too.” Another relative commented, “Staff have always been brilliant with my relative. You can see how happy they [staff] all are. Staff are not just there to do a job; they want to help people. They don’t do it for the money. Staff are brilliant with my relative.”

Staff told us they got to know people well and felt they were able to develop relationship with people to offer continuity.

Partners did not share any feedback specifically about Care provision, integration and continuity.

The provider sourced accommodation for people for short breaks. This was checked and risks assessed prior to breaks taking place to ensure it was suitable for people, both with the physical environment and also so people were able to partake in hobbies of their choices and had access to activities in the vicinity.

People were supported to communicate in a way that suited them. We did receive feedback staff needed to be more mindful of the subtle cues and forms of communication from some people, which staff may not always pick up. However, feedback was generally positive about how people were supported and a relative (and a professional) told us staff were willing to work to improve their communication with people. A relative said, “Staff are really good with my relative, they know how to communicate, reduce speech down. Staff use a now and next pack. They’ve made lots of pictures of places my relative likes to go, and they have done that on their own back. It is lovely they are just doing it; it takes it off me which means a lot. The staff know when speech is too much or not enough [for my relative]. I feel staff know my relative so well.”

Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs. Staff were committed to developing and improving their skills and ability to understand people’s methods of communication. One staff member said, “We support people with varied communication needs. This information is always in a person’s care plan.” Feedback from a professional confirmed the eagerness of staff to develop their communications skills.

People had care plans in place that detailed their communication needs and how they expressed themselves. However, guidance from Speech and Language Therapists were not always incorporated into the provider’s own care plan. Despite this, people were generally well supported.

Some relatives felt they would like to know where people were going on their residential breaks sooner. One relative said, “That’s the only thing that bothers us, we don’t know where our relative is going until a couple of days before. We don’t have a say in where my relative goes.” Relatives told us they felt able to complain if they needed to. A relative commented, “I would feel able to complain, but it is a bit difficult to know exactly who to contact there, it changes, so it’s difficult to know who to go to.” Another relative said they had raised concerns before and felt it was dealt with, “The registered manager says to call them and not to worry. I feel I can be really open, even if it is a difficult conversation. The registered manager is a great support, not just for my relative but us as a family. That’s really important they recognise the whole family as well as my relative. I can’t thank them enough.”

Staff were aware to share concerns raised to them with the management team so they could take action.

There was an annual survey. Relatives could generally not recall this, but the provider explained a new survey was due to be carried out soon. We saw feedback from people had been acted on by the provider, such as about having a disco, and whilst the disco did not go ahead at the specific time initially requested, several other discos took place throughout the year and 'Taylor Fest' took place, which was also requested by people the provider supported. We saw complaints were recorded and tracked and action was taken in response to feedback.

People were generally supported by their relative to access other services, such as medical treatment. Staff at Taylor Support supported people intermittently so did not need to support people with their access to other professionals. People’s planned care generally took place as planned. There had been occasions when planned support could not take place, but the provider tried to avoid this. The provider was proactive at engaging with a range of resources and organisation to offer a range of experiences for people.

Staff told us the provider ensured there were enough staff, so people got the support needed.

Partners were consistently positive about Taylor Support Hub and the opportunities partners collaborated with them on to support people.

The provider had a ‘core team’ of staff, who knew people well and had specialised insight into the person’s background and support requirements. It was explained to us there was an informal arrangement rather than a formal ‘key worker’ process. The core team would have team meetings to review the support for that person and record these.

People had the opportunity to engage in experiences and lead a fulfilling life. For example, a relative told us, “Staff know my relative better than some of our extended family. The way my relative goes on the supports means my relative is comfortable. They [staff] made a calendar for me last Christmas and it showed the activities my relative had achieved over that year. It was wonderful what my relative had been able to achieve, it was a really nice thing for the staff to do.”

Staff were focused on ensuring people could partake in things they enjoyed and helped people to achieve positive outcomes. One staff member said, “We try and promote people’s choice where they can make it but if they cannot we try and find their preferences, and this is recorded in the care plans so we can support them in the way they want.”

Staff were able to anticipate if people were not satisfied or not wanting to partake in the activities planned. Therefore, the provider and staff generally had back up plans to offer people other choices and options to ensure they continued to have a positive experience. We saw plans in place suggesting the first option and what alternative options could be considered. The provider followed the guidance, ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ in ensuring there was choice for people in how they spent their day while with staff.

People were able to plan for the future. No one being supported was nearing the end of their life, so this had not been necessary to plan for. However, people were able to set goals and plans to lead a fulfilling life and relatives felt able to contribute to this. A relative told us, “Some of the things they have achieved with my relative, I wouldn’t have believed it, it’s the level of support they give my relative that has enabled my relative to manage that.” One relative said, “We get a feedback form. I tend to give them quite a lot of feedback on a regular basis.”

Staff did not have any feedback about Planning for the future.

The provider had plans throughout each year about what day trips, holidays and activities they were planning which were tailored to individuals, to help them work towards achieving their goals.