Napier Homecare Services Limited

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 changed to outstanding. This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.

This service scored 90 (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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff spoke positively about people and demonstrated a caring, person‑centred approach in how they delivered support. People consistently told us they were extremely happy with their care and felt listened to, with staff adjusting how support was delivered according to individual needs and preferences. One person told us. “they’d amend it so I could agree with it”. When talking about their how their care plan would meet their needs. Another family member told us. “They are phenomenal, what they do is amazing.”
Staff built warm relationships with people, and there were clear examples of compassionate practice. There was a genuine rapport and warmth build on continuity and trust. One person had a pet that was unwell, staff ensured that it was seen by a vet and supported the person to administer medication to the pet as prescribed.
Staff also demonstrated dignity‑preserving practices during sensitive tasks, and leaders reinforced expectations through regular communication and team meetings. Positive staff attitudes were supported by them telling us that they felt supported by management and able to raise concerns, contributing to a culture of kindness.

Staff showed compassion and personal commitment by maintaining contact with people whilst in hospital, they also provided meals for people who would be spending Christmas alone. This was encouraged and celebrated by the provider.

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. The provider always treated people as individuals and demonstrated a strong commitment to person‑centred care. Care plans were detailed and reflected each person’s preferences, communication needs, cultural and religious beliefs, hobbies, interests and life history. Staff respected individual differences. There was clear guidance for supporting someone who was hearing‑impaired, and personalised adjustments for religious practice such as Ramadan.
People had control over who supported them; introductory meetings were held before assigning staff, and if either party felt the match was unsuitable, alternative arrangements were made. This ensured relationships were built on compatibility and trust.
Staff paid attention to changing needs, such as arranging waking night support promptly for a person nearing end‑of‑life. Support patterns were reviewed and adapted when people or families requested changes, reinforcing a responsive, individualised approach.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The provider always supported people to have choice and control over their care. People were involved in their support planning, and staff sought consent appropriately, with mental capacity assessments completed where required. Staff encouraged people to maintain or build independence, celebrating when people achieved personal goals linked to independent living.
People could influence their daily support. Where a person’s preferred routine or communication method impacted how they engaged with staff, these preferences were respected. Risk management also reflected a least restrictive approach, with staff adapting visits to reduce anxiety for one individual while still meeting essential needs.
People and family members told the provider when they wanted changes, and these were acted on swiftly. Staff rotas were arranged to balance people’s preferences with staff wellbeing, giving people consistency while supporting autonomy.

The provider was exceptional in how they 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. Staff regularly noticed and acted on emerging concerns. Staff also worked proactively to help people access health services. One family member told us about how a staff member had responded to an emergency. “She saved my mum’s life, she acted very promptly.” Another told us , “They’ve picked up on it and contacted the doctor for me straightaway.” When staff noted that a person was showing signs of illness.

The provider valued maintaining small teams for each person, enabling them to build and maintain meaningful relationships. This has helped staff teams to identify when people are acting out of character and to respond appropriately.
People told the provider when they needed changes to their support arrangements, and call times or staffing patterns were adapted accordingly, even when this required altering runs or reorganising staff teams. One person told us “she resolves problems straight away.” When telling us about issues that they had raised to the registered manager about their support.
Incident reporting was well managed, with opportunities for lessons learned to be shared across teams. Staff were clear about when and how to escalate concerns, and communication across the service ensured that people’s immediate needs were recognised and met consistently.

The provider always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care. The provider always supported staff wellbeing and enabled them to provide compassionate, person‑centred care. Staff told us they felt supported, valued and able to approach leaders with concerns.

The provider shared examples of how much they value staff to help improve staff wellbeing. For instance, where a member of staff was provided with hotel accommodation following a house fire. Another told us about how they had been treated with compassion and care when they were unable to work through serious illness.

Managers were extremely approachable, compassionate and flexible, with rotas designed to meet both staff needs and people’s preferences.
Staff received regular one‑to‑one sessions where they could discuss wellbeing, development and long‑term goals. They felt they could absolutely put their trust and confidence in the provider. Appraisals showed reflective practice and constructive discussions about learning, skills and career aspirations. There was little staff turnover. Staff members that we spoke to had worked with the provider from between 6-16 years.
Training was comprehensive, with mandatory training completed and competency assessments in place for both staff and senior staff. Staff felt heard, and their feedback influenced service improvement, such as requests for specific training being acted upon. This strong support for staff wellbeing contributed directly to the positive experiences people described.