Enabling Others 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. This was the first assessment for the supported living aspect of this service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. However, we found people the providers processes did not always ensure people’s dignity was fully respected.

Feedback from staff highlighted their fondness and respect for the people they supported. Staff described how they promoted people’s dignity and privacy during daily care. We observed staff treating people with kindness and respect. People appeared to be comfortable in the presence of staff and engaged with them affectionately.

Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. One staff member told us, “When working with Dr’s and professionals everyone’s opinions is respected and accepted to benefits the clients.”

The providers processes did not always promote people’s dignity. Assessment tools were not always used effectively to understand people’s needs and the provider did not always ensure least restrictive practices.

The provider mostly treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care and support respected their preferences. However, the providers processes were not always used effectively to ensure people’s needs were fully understood, enabling staff to fully respect individuality.

Daily care routines were tailored around people’s needs and personal preferences. For example, 1 person liked to go out for lunch at a regular time. Care routines and support from staff enabled this person to maintain their chosen routine. Observations and engagement indicated this person was happy with the support they received.

Where people had complex communication needs, staff understood how to engage with them effectively. For example, staff took the time to expose 1 person who had complex communication needs to new activities in a positive and person-centred way. Staff understood their behaviours well, knowing when to encourage or disengage with the activity. Observations indicated this person felt comfortable with the approach tailored by staff. One relative told us, “[Staff] are very good with [Person] and understand their needs and how to support them.”

Assessment documents did not always fully explore people’s communication, health or mental capacity related needs effectively to ensure their personal individual needs were thoroughly understood and reflected in staff approach. This meant the provider could not be fully assured individuality was fully respected.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence and enable choice and control over their daily care routines.

People were supported by staff to make daily decisions. Such as, what clothes they wanted to wear, where they wanted to go during support, what food and drink they wanted. Observations of people’s interactions with staff indicated they felt comfortable with the support provided that enabled choice and control. Feedback from staff indicated they knew people well and supported people to make independent choices throughout their daily routines. However, the providers processes for assessing people’s mental capacity were not thorough and did not always include the views and wishes of people and other stake holders associated with their care. This meant the provider could not always be assured people were well supported to maintain independence choice and control.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment to minimise discomfort, concern or distress. However, the support provided was not always safe. The providers processes did not always support staff to understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

Staff were present with people in their home environments and responded to their immediate needs. Observations indicated people felt well supported by staff and felt their daily needs were being met. However, we also observed staff did not respond to a person experiencing an epileptic seizure in a safe and appropriate manner.

People’s care records did not always provide staff with consistent guidance on how to meet people’s needs safely. For example, medicine protocols did not always record how frequently people required the administration of topical medicines. People’s care plans did not always detail safe and effective use of prescribed safe holds when people experienced distress.

The provider mostly supported staff performance and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. However, they did not achieve this consistently.

Staff had opportunity to raise concerns or suggest feedback during private meetings with managers and through performance appraisals. Records indicated concerns were listened to and acted upon by leadership. Feedback from most staff indicated they received useful feedback and encouragement during these meetings. One staff member told us, “We are praised for the quality-of-care logs, or for covering sickness. This makes me feel valued.”

Most staff told us they felt well supported by leaders at the service. One staff member told us, “The team leaders work with staffing team. We learn from them, and they help us to improve and develop. Everything is used as a learning opportunity and very positive. Leaders are very visible and involved with not only the clients, but the staff as well.”

However, concerns from 1 staff member indicated they felt the working environment was not welcoming to feedback and concerns about process were ignored by leaders.