Supportive Care Services Ltd

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 with kindness and respect.

People told us staff were kind, respectful and treated them with dignity. One relative told us, “They [staff] are very patient with [person]. They [staff] always talk with [person].” It was clear from discussions with people and relatives they felt staff had respect for the people they supported.

The provider demonstrated a culture within the service of respect and understood the importance of such a culture. Staff were respectful of people and delivered the care and support with compassion and maintained people’s dignity.

Staff had completed training in relation to dignity in care.

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 considered people’s cultural needs and tailored that support with input from people. The registered manager explained how they tried to make sure they recruited care staff from the same community as the people they supported to ensure people’s cultural needs and preferences could be met.

Staff had completed training around equality and diversity that took account of people’s protected characteristics. People told us they were treated well by staff who were considerate and understood their individual needs and preferences. One relative told us, “[Person] is very happy with their carer because they speak with them in their [person’s] own language.”

People and their relatives told us they had consistent staff members visiting them, who knew them well and understood their individual preferences.

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

People and their relatives told us they had input into the support they received and felt involved in decision making on a day-to-day basis. One relative said, “[Staff member] gets on very well with [person] they have a lovely relationship, and it means I don’t have to worry when I’m at work. I know [staff member] takes good care of [person] and [person] would tell me if they didn’t.”

Staff gave examples of how they supported people to maintain some of their independence. One staff member told us, “[Person] is very independent and likes to do things for themselves but sometimes they can find it difficult, and I will ask if they want any help.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff were alert to people’s needs and responded in a timely manner when needed.

Everyone we spoke with told us the staff were quick to respond to their support needs. They told us the provider was flexible in their approach should there be a need to change times or dates of care calls due to hospital admission or appointments. One family member told us how the provider had made a referral to a health care agency to support their relative.

Staff we spoke with clearly understood the needs of those they supported, what was important to the person and how they preferred to be supported.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff because they had not always made sure staff had regular weekly breaks between working days.

The registered manager told us they and the provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they felt valued by the provider and treated with respect. However, we found on reviewing rotas that some staff members had worked consistently with the same people every day between 1 January 2026 and 31 March 2026. One staff member told us, “Yes I work every day but it is only for a few hours, I get plenty of rest.” While the days the staff were working had not involved excessive hours or call cramming, it indicated some staff worked 7 days a week and not had a day’s break or holiday for 3 months. Call cramming refers tothe practice in care at home services of scheduling too many visits in too short a time, or with insufficient travel time, to be completed safely and effectively. The provider told us staff did have holidays and had breaks between their calls because they only had a limited number of calls to complete a day. We found staff wellbeing did feature in staff meeting minutes; however, we could not see how the provider had encouraged staff to take breaks or book their annual leave. A staff member told us, “We must tell [registered manager] in advance if we want a holiday so they can arrange cover. I would ask if I needed to (have a holiday).”

Staff we spoke with said they were given time to travel between their calls and rotas demonstrated that call schedules for staff were manageable. Staff told us they had team meetings and supervisions and those staff spoken with felt comfortable to report any concerns or issues they had back to the registered manager.