We concluded that the provider's arrangements had improved in respect of making people aware of the complaints' process and how and when to use it. This meant that people who used the services, their families and staff, were supported to understand how to make complaints, how to respond to complaints and what would happen following their complaint.
We received positive comments about the efforts staff from the team made to explain things to people and to include them and their families in making decisions about their care. We received only one example of what someone felt was a 'breakdown' in communication but were told this was not a current issue. We received positive comments about the support offered to people and their families or carers. One person described this as "...a lifesaver."
We found that people's needs were assessed and that care plans were drawn up to meet these. They were also communicated to other services that people used. Relatives told us how they were involved in reviews so that they were aware of what was happening and could represent their family member who used the service.
We saw recorded evidence of how the team worked constructively with other providers to ensure that people's needs were met. We gathered information from other providers to confirm this. One representative of a provider told us the input they received from a team member was "...fantastic." They felt the team was responsive to requests for advice and help about how best to meet specific or changing needs. Relatives told us how the team liaised, for example to arrange respite care.
No one was able to confirm they were offered information about how to complain about the team. There was some 'easy read' guidance about how to raise a concern about health staff, which could be given to people. Guidance about complaining about social care staff was inaccessible to people with learning disabilities. However, relatives spoken with were confident they would be able to raise issues.
People's representatives told us that they felt people received good support from the team to meet specific needs. One said, "If the person we speak to can't help they always point us towards someone who can." People felt that the service was flexible in how it responded and offered support to people to meet their needs.
We found that the office accommodation presented some concerns for fire safety but that people using the service were not present in the building all the time so at minimal risk. People with physical disabilities were able to access the ground floor for appointments.
We found that staff were recruited properly to ensure they were suitable for their roles and did not present a risk to vulnerable people. We also found that improvements had been made to the way the overall quality of the service was checked. People were asked for their views about it.
People's experience of the service was through their initial or first assessment and work with people who were already on the service's register. People did not pay for this service, but the team directly influenced commissioning, or payments that each assessed individual was eligible for, which were reviewed and updated according to needs or any changes in such needs. The health service provided by this team was free for people.
People were also provided with various options to make their own decisions and to choose their care provider.
People were protected by this team carrying out such tasks as arranging, calling, setting and leading safeguarding meetings.
We saw communication and correspondence with people who had made complaints about aspects of their care. For example, we saw one person's request to be present at the coming review for their relative where the level of funding for their care was to be decided.