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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

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

This service scored 40 (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.

We found that staff most of the time, treated people with kindness and respected their dignity. However, we observed examples of this not always being upheld.
For example, at one service, the inspector was let into someone’s flat whilst they weren’t there and without their permission. Additionally, we observed staff discussing personal matters about a person in front of other people that lived there, other staff and the CQC Inspector.

People told us they were happy with the staff and they liked them. One relative told us, “[Staff] are so caring,” and “They do everything for [person].”

We received feedback from staff that some members of the management team would speak about people using derogatory terms. This was shared with the provider during the assessment, however, action was not taken until after our assessment concluded.
 

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

People using the service were not consistently treated as individuals, and care was not sufficiently personalised to reflect their needs or preferences.

We found that care plans and assessments lacked meaningful detail and were often generic. The provider did not capture people’s life history, communication needs or what mattered most to them on a day-to-day basis.

We were not assured that people were involved in decisions about their care or that their views were actively sought and acted upon.
 

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.

People told us that they didn’t feel they had choice, particularly in reference to meal choices as these tended to be cooked communally, despite many people having their own kitchens or kitchenettes.

We found examples, where people had gained independence in some aspects of their care, since our last assessment. However, this was not always due to planning and support from the provider, and one person told us, “I took it upon myself,” and another person told us, “Staff don’t do stuff for me they don’t need to, I do it myself.”
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff were not always able respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We found that staff did not always have the tools to respond effectively to people’s needs, as information within people’s plans and assessments was vague and lacked personalised detail. For example, where someone may require a PRN medication, information was not clear on when or how to give this.

Additionally, although assistive technology had been implemented, there was not enough guidance in place for staff to use this effectively. For example, one person had an epilepsy sensor in place, however, there was little guidance on how it worked and how staff should use it and maintain it. This meant that people were left at risk of harm.
 

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

Some staff told us that they felt supported, and reported no concerns with their wellbeing, however, most of the staff we spoke to told us they felt treated unfairly, and there was a culture of favouritism within the management team.
Staff’s wellbeing was not upheld as a priority, as we found staff were working excessive hours with no breaks, including waking nights, which also left people at risk of harm due to staff fatigue.
Staff were not provided with the correct training, or tools to deliver care that met everyone’s needs.