Vogue Future Living 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

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 requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.

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.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

During our assessment, we observed many positive interactions between staff, leaders, relatives and people. One person told us, that staff are “brilliant, kind and caring. They are always there for you”.

This was not a consistent experience for some people. One person told us that they often have to wait a long time to be supported with their personal care needs, because there isn’t the right staff working where they live to support them with this. The provider utilises staff from other services to come and support them, which at times can mean delays in staff arriving to help.

At one of the services, there is a gym in the building, which is accessible, and used by people not living there, or being supported by the provider. We found during our assessment that when this is in use, it was loud and disruptive.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were able to access a variety of different activities, planned and carried out by the providers. People also accessed different day services, some which cater to different interests, such as a local cooking college.

People’s flats were decorated to their personal taste, including posters, photos and souvenirs. People were generally happy with the décor in their flat, even where they hadn’t necessarily chosen it. One person told us their flat was “brilliant”.

People were supported to meet their religious needs, including attending religious services on a regular basis, if they wanted to.

Care plans and assessments did not always portray people as individuals, and there were phrases used within a lot of people’s documentation that wasn’t relevant to them and had been applied to most people. For example, “staff to use all their training and techniques to make personal care a positive and enjoyable experience”, however, it did not then detail how this would look for each individual person, and what was the best way to support them.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We found some examples, where people were being empowered to gain more independence. One example was someone becoming more independent with their own catheter care, and another is taking steps towards being independent with their personal care needs. There wasn’t a clear structure or consistent approach given to staff, with the involvement of people, in order to achieve this, and therefore it wasn’t always consistent. One person told us, “I like how much choice I have”.

An area where people lacked choice and control was around meals. People had utilities within their flats at one of the services, to cook their own meals of their choosing, however, we found that meals were being cooked in the communal area for multiple people. Although people had a say in what was planned for meals for the week, there wasn’t much flexibility if someone changed their mind nearer the time and wanted something different. We asked people if they were supported to cook and develop their skills, and they told us that staff cook it for them, as it’s being prepared for a group of people.

Care records did not detail where people had been given, and supported to make choices, or how they had been supported to become more independent or maintain independence.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

The provider had cars, and staffing available for people to access their chosen day services, education or activities. We found that people were able to get to these promptly, and staff worked hard to ensure people’s social needs were met.

We were not assured that people’s health needs were met in the same way, as some people didn’t always have access to appropriate staff for their personal care, when they needed it. The lack of multi-agency working and referrals to external professionals required for advice and guidance on certain health needs, meant people were at risk of not having their needs met. There was also a lack of information available for staff to support people with all their needs appropriately, which could cause delay.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

At one of the services, some people required staff to complete “sleepover” shifts, which meant the staff member was able to rest and sleep on their shift, but would be required to respond should someone need their support. The staff had access to a pull-out bed, which was kept within an office space. This office also had a CCTV camera within it. Staff were not comfortable with the use of the CCTV camera in here and they didn’t like that it was there. This was raised with leaders during the course of our assessment, and we were told it had now been removed.

Staff feedback was mixed. Some people felt supported within their role, but some staff did not have the same experience. Some staff reported that morale was very low, and there was a culture of favouritism and bullying. One person told us, there is a “toxic work environment” as leaders speak negatively about staff, freely in front of their colleagues. Another told us “I have felt incredibly supported by management” and “The support provided has been both professional and empathetic”.