43 Station Road

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 remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 65 (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 and staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy.

We found 27 entries in 2 people’s records where language was not respectful. When people had been supported with continence care, comments such as “diaper changed” and “cleaned their bum” had been used.However, we observed that staff supported people with kindness and empathy. We saw positive and person-centred interactions between people and staff throughout the assessment. Staff spoke about people with affection. One relative told us, “Some of the staff who know [the person] well care for them very well”.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Support plans included information about people’s needs and preferences. Records showed staff supported people with changes to their routine when needed. One staff member said, “The people are great, each one is different and special in their own way.” Staff understood people’s routines and what was important to them. This encouraged a positive and appropriate approach to people and supporting their diverse needs.

People were provided with the equipment they required to support their needs. Staff ensured this was in good working order. The provider had planned adaptations to ensure people’s homes remained suitable for their needs.

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.

Support plans included details of people’s day-to-day needs, but the records did not always include information on goals, preferences, hobbies or interests. Where key aspects of people’s wider support needs were not considered, this increased the risk of social isolation. One relative told us, “I would like them to promote [person’s] independence, like washing in the shower. I would also like to see [person’s] care plan”.

Support plans lacked detail on how people were involved in reviewing these and how they spent their time. The provider did not have enough evidence to demonstrate how people were supported to make a choice and improve their independence, as they often went out together with other people. This meant people did not have the opportunity to develop individual goals, review their progress against these, and explore the barriers they encountered to consider strategies in how they would overcome these.

Staff handovers identified one-to-one hours allocated to support people, which differed. Staff told us how they supported people to maintain activities of daily living, such as making their bed and cleaning their rooms. One staff member told us, “We prompt people to do things for themselves where they can. It’s important for them to stay in control as much as possible”.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

Staff told us they had sufficient training and support to understand people’s needs before supporting them. Records provided detailed descriptions on how staff should respond to minimise discomfort, concern, or emotional distress.
Staff told us different ways people expressed their needs through non-verbal communication methods. We saw that staff were available and able to provide people with choices verbally.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported following changes in management. Some staff had reasonable adjustments to support them effectively in their role.Managers had systems to monitor supervision and appraisals. Staff were provided regular supervision by the manager during their probation period to review goals. Team meetings provided staff with an opportunity to discuss any concerns or issues they had. One staff member told is, “[Manager] told us the floor was open to all and everyone was expressive.”