Rainbow Living

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People’s independence was promoted, and they had choice and control over their care and support. Staff took the time to understand people’s individual communication styles and develop a rapport with them. People were encouraged to make choices for themselves and staff respected people’s choices and wherever possible, accommodated their wishes. Staff could recognise signs when people experienced emotional distress and knew how to support them to minimise the need to restrict their freedom to keep them safe. Staff were very positive about the support they received. They were valued and treated with respect and told us Rainbow Living was a good company to work for.

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.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We visited 3 supported living projects and engaged with 6 people. We were able to speak with 2 people about independence, choice and control. People confirmed they were supported to be independent. The Expert by Experience contacted people by phone and spoke to 4 people and 5 family members. 8 responses confirmed people were supported to be independent.

We received good feedback from 9 support workers during our onsite visits about how they supported people to be independent. We had a discussion with the registered manager onsite and reviewed 1 care plan. People were in control of their own routines and had regular access to the community. Activities were dictated by their choices.

We engaged with 6 people in 3 supported living projects during our onsite visits. The 2 people at Grove Lane both had capacity and were independent and both people confirmed this when we spoke with them; we observed 1 of these people walking down the street independently. We observed 2 people at Heys Court who were assessed as lacking capacity to consent to their care arrangements and required 2-1 staffing and 3-1 staffing. There were no concerns about their care that we observed and both people had access to the community and their families. We spoke to 2 people at Merton House; both had very active lives including voluntary work.

We reviewed 2 care plans with 2 people at Merton House. Both people were in control of their routines, which were reviewed and agreed with them each week. Both people had access to the community and a range of activities, including volunteering and/or employment. The electronic care plans recorded activities for each person. We reviewed 2 activities records and they provided evidence people had accessed the community and had regular contact with their families.

We visited 3 supported living projects and engaged with 6 people. We were able to speak with 2 people about staff being responsive to their immediate needs. One person told us staff understood their needs and responded quickly where required. They also explained they had a traffic light system on their door to communicate how they felt to staff. The second person also had a traffic light system in place but felt staff did not understand them well enough to support them in a crisis. The Expert by Experience contacted people by phone and spoke with 4 people and 5 family members; 8 of these confirmed staff responded to people’s immediate needs appropriately.

The registered manager explained there was a clear focus on positive behaviour support plans (PBS). They also stated regular staff was a key component required to provide good care. Any new staff were introduced carefully through induction and shadow shifts. Communication tools were also important and were used to guide staff. We spoke with 5 support workers on-site and they all confirmed they felt safe and the PBS’s were effective.

We engaged with 6 service users in 3 supported living projects during our onsite visits. We observed staff responding very quickly and appropriately when 1 person reacted to a new person being in their environment. We observed good interactions between people and staff and we observed no concerns.

We received very positive feedback from 9 support workers when we spoke with them on-site; they told us Rainbow Living was a good company to work for. Staff told us they felt valued, listened to and the provider was focused on providing good care.

There was evidence of staff recognition, and staff being valued by the provider. Staff had access to an employee support programme including access to counselling. The provider recognised staffs length of service and held an annual award ceremony. The provider used a nationally recognised tool to manage sickness absence.