Archived: Santos Care 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

Our rating for this question has remained requires improvement. Feedback from people about how staff treated them was mixed. Some people felt their individual choices and preferences were considered while other did not. The provider had systems in place to support staff wellbeing.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received differing views about how people were treated by staff. One person said, “I am very happy with them [staff], they bend over backwards to help whenever they can.” Others expressed concerns that staff were not compassionate in their approach, describing them as ‘heavy handed’ and ‘not communicative’.

Staff described how they protected people’s privacy and dignity when providing care. This included examples such as giving people plenty of time and closing doors and curtains when providing person care.

Leaders told us they trained staff to provide people with compassionate care. They told us they also carried out spot checks to observe how staff treated people and gave direction to staff where concerns were identified.

We did not receive any specific concerns from partner agencies about how people were treated. However, records showed professionals had expressed concerns about staff not responding compassionately to a person when they had experienced a series of falls.

People’s feedback was varied about how their individual needs were considered. Some people felt staff took account of their individual preferences and requirements while others did not.

Most staff we spoke with were able to explain people’s individual needs and preferences. Leaders told us this information was gathered during assessments and guidance was then produced for staff to follow.

In their Provider Information Return the nominated individual told us they did not provide support to anyone with protected characteristics. These include age, disability, race, religion or belief. This response demonstrated a lack of understanding on behalf of the nominated individual about how they could support people’s individual needs.

Feedback provided about how people’s independence was promoted was mixed. Some people felt their independence had increased since receiving support from staff, while others felt the staff approach to their care had resulted in them have less autonomy and control.

Staff told us they supported people to make their own choices where possible, this included what people ate and drank and what they liked to wear.

Leaders told us they included information about how people made choices in the care plans, which offered guidance to staff about how to support people’s independence.

Care plans did not always contain detailed information about how people preferred to receive their care. For example, 1 person’s care plan and risk assessment contained conflicting information about which area of their home they preferred to receive their personal care in. We found that care staff had not followed the information contained in the person’s care plan around where their personal care should be delivered which meant we could not be assured that their individual preferences had been met. However, care plans did include guidance for staff to follow about how to support decision making and involve people in decisions about their care.

We received mixed feedback about how staff responded to people’s changing needs. Some people spoke positively and said staff were quick to identify any changes to their health or wellbeing. Others shared concerns that they were not sure any changes would be picked up by staff or reported so further action could be taken. For example, where people’s presentation indicated their needs may have changed.

Staff shared examples with us of how they had taken immediate action when they had identified changes to people’s skin integrity. Staff told us and leaders confirmed any changes were communicated with the management team and care plans were updated.

Leaders told us they supported staff to maintain their wellbeing and encouraged them to approach the management team for any advice or assistance. Staff confirmed they felt confident to approach the care coordinator or nominated individual when they needed support. They also said they were given opportunities to discuss any incidents and take learning from events.

The provider recognised staff contributions to the service and the care they provided to people. Staff meetings included opportunities for the management team to identify where staff had gone above and beyond in the care they provided and this was recorded to acknowledge their input.