CFT 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

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 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.
 

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 ensure people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Whilst we observed some positive, supportive interactions during the inspection, we also found staff were not consistently respectful and empathetic when responding to people’s needs.

People’s care records did not always demonstrate dignified and respectful language when describing people’s needs and communication. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about whether they felt listened to and respected in interactions with staff and leaders

The provider told us they were continuously monitoring the terminology and language used in care documentation and had implemented additional training and guidance to promote good practice. They confirmed they were introducing more frequent meetings with people and relatives to ensure they were able to identify and address concerns with communication and staff support more promptly.
 

The provider had not always ensured people were treated as individuals. People’s care plans did not always take account of what was important to them or their abilities and aspirations. They did not provide sufficient guidance for staff to ensure their care and support was tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

At the time of the inspection, the provider was in the process of reviewing and updating their care planning system to ensure more detail was captured. However, this was not embedded and the guidance in place for staff was inconsistent.
 

The provider did not always ensure people’s independence, choice and control were promoted. We received some positive feedback from people’s relatives about how staff supported people to make choices about their daily care, including personal care and meal choices.

However, concerns were shared about how well people were encouraged to develop new skills and increase independence and control. We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives and health professionals about how well people were supported to make choices about activities, particularly within their local community. We also received mixed feedback about how well the provider supported people to maintain their important relationships.

We found people’s daily care records were poorly completed and lacked detail. This meant it was not always clear how staff were offering people choices or promoting their decision-making and independence.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We received mixed feedback about how promptly staff recognised when people’s distress was escalating and whether their responses were consistent. Whilst people’s care plans contained information about how to respond proactively, observations during site visits and feedback from people and their relatives identified concerns with staff not always responding in line with people’s care plan guidelines to ensure the risk of distress was minimised.

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

Feedback from staff and minutes from team meetings and staff surveys evidenced recurring concerns around poor communication between staff and leaders. Staff did not always feel supported, particularly when asking for support to manage incidents where people may pose a risk to themselves and others.

The provider had recognised the need for better communication between staff, support teams and leaders and had implemented open door events for staff to give feedback. The provider had also introduced staff recognition and reward systems and were increasing staff supervision and team meeting frequency. However, at the time of the inspection, these improvements were not yet embedded.