TheSignLife Project

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff knew people well and showed genuine care in how they supported them. One staff member explained, “I listen to what they want and need and then find a way to make this happen. Sometimes this involves doing it for them, sometimes it might be getting all the options ready so they can look themselves and make their own decision. It varies a lot and depends completely on the person, the level of trust we have built and their health and mobility.” Staff demonstrated thoughtful and respectful approaches, especially when supporting people with communication needs. One staff member described how they used tactile signing and personal cues to help someone feel safe and recognised, saying, “I tap [person] on the hand to let them know I’m here and do tactile signing. I let [person] feel my scarf, so they know who I am.”

People told us they were happy with the support they received. One person said, “I am happy with staff,” and a relative commented, “Staff are kind.” Staff detailed in their daily logs spending time engaging with people, including playing games and having conversations, which helped build positive relationships and combat loneliness.

Staff promoted dignity in personal care. One explained, “I don’t look at him when he is having a shower, so he does have that privacy, even though they need support.” Daily records also showed respectful and caring interactions. For example, one entry described encouraging someone to wash their hands after noticing they were dirty, and another recorded a positive outing to a café, where the person enjoyed chatting about their family and said they liked the support they received from the service. The overall atmosphere was warm and respectful, and staff consistently treated people with dignity and compassion.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure their care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. People’s strengths, abilities, culture and protected characteristics were not always fully considered in care planning.

One person’s care plan did not reflect their cultural or religious needs. A risk assessment noted that a relative preferred the person to attend a single-sex gym, but there was no evidence that this reflected the person’s own views. This raised concerns about whether the person’s autonomy was being respected, and whether care was being shaped more by others’ preferences than their own.

Although personalised information was missing from care records, staff knew people well and were able to describe how they supported them in a personalised way. One staff member said, “I support my client by providing them time, allowing them to communicate. I encourage them to go out in the world so as to stop them being isolated Sometimes they just want to have a tea and a chat. Sometimes they want to go on a trip or a walk and I help them to book this and arrange the support they will need.” Another staff member explained how they encouraged people who were reluctant to go out, saying, “I like to chat with those clients and make them happy.” Staff also supported people to make everyday choices, such as what to eat or where to shop, and respected their decisions even when they didn’t align with healthy choices. One staff member told us, “[person] loves fish and chips, and so we will go… Unfortunately, they are still smoking. We do support them getting their cigarettes… it’s their choice.” People were supported by staff who could communicate with them effectively. One person said they had “good communication with staff,”. While staff practice reflected a person-centred approach, this was not always backed up by care planning. This meant there was a risk that people’s individual needs and preferences might not be consistently recognised or met.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported people to make their own decisions and maintain as much independence as possible. One staff member told us, “I support someone who is deafblind. I always give choices.” Another said, “The best part of the job is meeting lots of different people, learning new ways to do things, and supporting independence.”

Daily records showed examples of people being encouraged to take part in everyday tasks. In one case, a person offered to help clean their home. The staff member wrote, “While I was sweeping, [the person] asked if they could help, so I handed over the broom. [The person] later requested to use the mop… and cleaned the area where they usually sit.” Where people had no family, staff acted on their behalf with permission, helping with things like medication and pharmacy arrangements. Staff also supported people to stay connected and involved in their communities. The manager told us, “Staff’s role is to encourage independence, and support access to events in the community.” One person said “I feel better with staff. I don’t worry when I'm with them”. People were treated with respect and supported in ways that helped them feel confident and in control of their lives.

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 were alert to changes in people’s wellbeing and knew what to do if someone appeared unwell or upset. They took action to reduce any discomfort and told us they would report concerns to the manager. This was supported by what we saw in daily records. One staff member described raising concerns about a person’s footwear, saying, “I let the manager know, but I had also informed the person and their relative.” Staff knew people well and understood how to respond if someone became distressed. One risk assessment included guidance for staff, stating that they could help the person remain calm by “listening and allowing them to express their feelings”.

Staff felt confident speaking up on behalf of the people they supported. One told us, “The manager always listens,” and others gave examples of how they acted quickly to support people in the moment. This responsive approach helped people feel safe, respected, and supported in their day-to-day lives.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff told us they felt supported by their managers and had regular opportunities to reflect on their work. Supervisions were held consistently, sometimes jointly between team leaders and managers. Staff said they could raise concerns or ask for help when needed. One staff member said, “I have regular touch points with my line manager and colleagues and I am able to share my ideas and opinions. I don’t feel like they are ignored, and I also feel the environment is very open and welcomes this discussion.” Another told us, “Every month we have a supervision or team meeting. If there’s an appointment, training, or something I don’t understand, I’ll prompt the manager.” Staff also said they could request a specific person and/or interpreter to carry out their supervision and felt confident to speak up if they weren’t comfortable. One person explained, “They always ask if I’m okay having that supervision with them, but I’m sure if I said no and wanted someone else, they would arrange it.” There were systems in place to recognise staff contributions, including positive feedback and gift cards. Staff described the workplace culture as open and supportive. The manager told us, “We have an open-door policy.” Staff spoke positively about their roles. One said, “For me, the best part is the flexibility and varied nature of the clients and work. It is well structured and allows me to do a good job.”

Staff used a check-in and check-out system to confirm their safety during visits. One staff member said, “We have a book-in system. If we’re more than 30 minutes late, we get a video call to check we’re okay.” This helped protect staff and ensured people received timely support.

At the time of inspection, the manager was on-call every evening and weekend. However, staff and relatives reported mixed experiences when trying to contact the service out of hours. One staff member said they sometimes waited hours for a response, while a relative said they would leave a message and someone would always call back. This inconsistency suggested the on-call system may not always be sustainable or responsive. The manager was responsive to this feedback and, following the inspection, introduced an on-call rota to enable the on-call to be shared between the management team.