Pacific Care Services Limited - Isle of Wight

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. People and family members consistently described staff as kind, friendly, and polite. A person said, “The girls [care staff] cope so well with all their troubles and then come and cope with me, they are so nice, they are lovely, we have a nice chat and a giggle.” A family member told us, “They are nice to [relative] really… they talk to them and chat away, oh they are very polite to me.”

Staff confirmed they had received training in dignity and respect and described actions such as closing curtains and covering people during personal care to maintain privacy. External professionals reported carers as “professional and caring” during joint visits.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care plans included personal histories and preferences, and staff described encouraging people’s choices. A staff member said, “You encourage people’s individual needs and preferences.” Another explained, “I make sure I give them an option such as clothing.” People confirmed staff asked what they wanted and adapted care accordingly. External professionals noted the service listened to people and promoted autonomy.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Care plans detailed what people could do for themselves, and staff encouraged independence. A staff member said, “Yes, always try to give them [people] independence without overloading them.” People told us they were offered options and supported to make decisions. For example, a person said, “They [staff] ask me what I want and respect my choices.”

External professionals highlighted that the service promoted independence and autonomy where appropriate.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Office staff confirmed that changes to planned care visits could be made if, for example, a person needed support to attend hospital or required a longer call such as following a fall or waiting for an ambulance. People said the office and staff were helpful in adjusting care when needed and that they could ask staff for extra help or changes and that staff responded quickly. We were told about positive examples, such as a staff member escalating a health concern immediately: “I went in and the person was saying they couldn’t breathe. I phoned 999 and stayed until the ambulance arrived.”

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Most staff said they felt supported and could raise concerns, and the provider offered signposting for counselling and wellbeing services. However, staff reported issues with rosters, late scheduling, and insufficient travel time between calls, which caused stress. A staff member said, “On a scale of 1 to 10 it would be a 6. They [management team] could listen more.” Another described being told by the out of hours support that they could not take a sick family member to hospital due to lack of cover. They said they escalated this and it was resolved by a local office staff member, but it had made them feel very anxious and stressed.

The nominated individual [providers legally responsible person] described how new staff were supported by the registered manager when they first arrived in the UK and that they had supported a staff member to access medical treatment and some financial support when they were unable to work for a prolonged period. The management team told us they encouraged staff to speak up and seek support if they felt they needed it and staff well-being was considered as part of supervision.