Apex Prime Care - Basingstoke

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

Staff did not always treat people with kindness, empathy or compassion, and they did not consistently respect people’s privacy and dignity. However, staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People gave positive feedback about their regular staff where they have had the opportunity to build good relationships. Comments included, “The staff are extremely nice, polite and helpful”, “I have grown to know them quite well and we have a good rapport. We often have a laugh and joke which is really nice”, and “My regular carers are wonderful, very caring and considerate and extremely helpful.” A relative told us, “The regular four carers are so caring and understanding. They are calm, patient and very relaxed which makes the whole process easy.”

However, some people reported that other staff behaved in a rude manner and made them feel rushed. People told us, “Some staff are nice; some I don’t feel comfortable around. It’s their attitude—they just want to be in and out again”, and “Sometimes I feel rushed. I have two showers a week. If I don’t have a carer I trust, I sometimes don’t have a shower.” We also received feedback that office staff could be rude. A relative explained, “If you eventually speak with someone in the office, they can be unpleasant, disinterested and never follow up on what has been discussed.”

The provider treated people as individuals and took account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff assessed people’s cultural, religious and spiritual needs and recorded this information in their care plans. They also documented people’s communication needs, including any adjustments required to support effective communication between people and staff.

The provider mostly promoted people’s independence and helped them understand their rights, maintaining choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. Where people did not always have choice over their care, we report this in other sections of the report. People gave positive feedback about the support they received to maintain their independence. One person told us, “I am very independent otherwise, so it’s nice to just have a quick chat with them on a daily basis.” Other people said, “The staff are all very pleasant and try and be as helpful as possible. They are good at their jobs”, “They are very respectful in our home and do listen to what both of us say”, and “I am able to stay quite independent and remain at home with their support and I am very grateful.”

Staff gave examples of how they encouraged people to remain as independent as possible and recognised the importance of supporting people to maintain daily living skills where they were able to do so.

The provider mostly listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and took action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. One relative described how a staff member advised them to seek professional medical help, and after following this advice, the person is now recovering in hospital.

Most people’s care plans described their specific medical conditions and how these affected their daily lives. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognise changes in people’s needs and knew what action to take in response. Office staff updated care plans to reflect any required changes, and this information was then shared with staff through an IT application on their phones.

The provider did not always promote staff wellbeing or support staff effectively to deliver person‑centred care. Staff gave mixed feedback about the level of support they received. Some staff told us they felt supported by the provider, while others said they did not. Several staff explained the service had grown and local offices had been removed, which left those living further from the main office feeling isolated. Staff also told us they had been left without management support at the end of the year before the new manager was appointed, and that changes within the office team had caused unease. Staff were not always supported through regular supervisions and appraisals, as these were not consistently up to date.

The provider had systems in place to promote staff safety and wellbeing. These included lone‑working risk assessments to help ensure staff remained safe while carrying out their duties. The provider also worked with an external company to offer a mental health helpline, which staff could access through an IT application for guidance and support.