Qualitcare24-7 Ltd Portsmouth

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 75 (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 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 their families told us staff were kind and caring. Comments we received included, “The care is excellent. Staff are extremely caring,” “Staff are kind and caring, they know me well,” and, “[carer] is brilliant, they all are.”

Staff were able to describe how they supported people’s dignity and privacy, for example closing curtains and doors during personal care provision and talking through tasks which staff were completing.

Systems were in place to monitor staff were caring for people with respect and if any concerns were identified, leaders took action to make appropriate changes. For example, 1 person told us they previously raised a concern around their care team due to personality clash, management took steps to adjust the care team, which the person was happy with. Leaders also demonstrated good working relationships with external professionals including medical and adult social care professionals.

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.

People’s individual needs and preferences were reflected in their care plans. This included personal care needs and access to the community. For example, 1 person’s relative told us of support care staff provided to ensure their relative was ready for outings when they’d arranged them which was part of their care plan. Also, people’s care plans were updated when people’s needs or preferences changed.

The provider also had systems in place to support staff with their protected characteristics including disability and culture. Also, we received feedback from external professionals which said the provider met people’s individual needs.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Leaders had systems in place to monitor staff to ensure they were supporting people to make their own choices and promoting their independence. This included supervision meetings, training and spot checks. In addition, there was a policy in place which staff confirmed they had access to. People we spoke to confirmed they were aware of the information in their care plans and felt involved in their care and treatment choices.

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.

People received care from staff who knew them and their needs well. One staff member told us, “I have managed to build relationships through communication and companionship. I take opportunities to chat with people and do things with them.” People we spoke to confirmed staff listened to them, for example, comments we received included, “Staff are extremely caring, they listen to me,” and “Staff are flexible with extra things like time changes and getting [person] ready for outings.”

Also, staff responded to people’s needs and made appropriate referrals to external agencies if required. For example, 1 person developed a pressure injury which was identified and managed effectively by leaders. A relative we spoke to confirmed this and told us, “I was informed and staff spotted it at an early stage and referred to the nurses, carers were proactive in spotting it.”

Leaders had systems and processes in place to identify any shortfalls in the quality of care people received. These included assigned team leaders to staff members, unannounced spot checks, feedback sought from people and regular supervision meetings with staff. This meant staff were supported to be responsive to people’s needs and any short falls would be identified, and action was taken.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Leaders told us they had systems and processes in place to support staff with their wellbeing which included regular supervision meetings, an open-door policy in the office and additional training if required, which staff confirmed they were aware of. Staff we spoke to were able to describe individuals support needs and how they were safely met which demonstrated staff had the necessary information to provide person centred care, which people and staff we spoke to confirmed.