Call on Me Ltd

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Outstanding.

This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.

This service scored 90 (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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were very positive about the exceptional kindness, empathy and compassion demonstrated by staff and the provider. They felt listened to by staff who knew them well. People’s privacy was respected, and staff were respectful, kind and supportive. One person told us, “Staff are 100% respectful,” another person’s family member said, “I’m very happy with staff’s empathy and intentions.” One person had nominated their staff team for an award, which they won and demonstrated positive interactions between people and staff. In addition, one person told us of sharing their achievement via the service’s social media platform and how positive it was to do this. Leaders told us of the process for sharing information on social media. People were supported to stay safe on-line and continue to have a positive experience.

Leaders told us the staff team worked very well together, and the use of agency staff was not required, this meant people received care from a consistent staff team, which people confirmed. Staff were consistent in demonstrating their understanding of the people they were supporting, and of people’s rights, in relation to privacy. They passionately supported people to make their voice heard; even if this conflicted with others’ views. Leaders performed regular visits to services and actively monitored the caring culture of the service. If any concerns were identified, there were processes in place to investigate and resolve these.

We received feedback from external partners who said staff were kind and respectful when communicating with people and them and good working relationships were maintained with visiting health professionals. One professional told us, “People who use their service are treated with dignity and respect,” another said, “I have never had any problems or difficulties working with the staff at Call on Me.”

We observed people were supported by staff who were respectful, sought their consent and showed genuine interest in them and their wellbeing. Staff were respectful to people and their homes. For example, by knocking on their doors before entering and supporting people discretely with their personal care and continence needs. We also observed people’s personal information was kept secure.

The provider treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People shared their likes, interests, hobbies and preferences and confirmed they were supported with these by staff. Staff were able to describe how they supported people and knew their histories, interests and hobbies. People we spoke to spoke positively of staff with comments including, “Staff are wonderful, kind and caring,” and, “The staff are really good, I do like them all.”

Leaders and staff spoke warmly about people and knew people as individuals. The mental health lead spoke passionately about the new approach they had implemented and how it was led by the person. Examples included one person was supported to join the voluntary workforce in a field which had identified their personal strengths, aspirations and abilities. Another person was supported to become independent with using public transport which was a personal goal and one person was supported in a highly person-centred way with their sexual identity. This person was able to share their feelings about their sexuality in a safe space when they were ready. Staff demonstrated their awareness of being able to access resources for the person to support them to explore whilst recognising the importance boundaries and being led by the person. This highly person-centred approach was consistent across people who received care from Call on Me Ltd.

Staff were observed engaging in conversations with people about their interests, and knew in detail the different interests of each person they were talking with. For example, with one person about music and another about reality television, with another discussion about animals. This meant staff were aware of people’s different preferences and interests. In addition, we observed staff providing highly individualised support to people appropriate for them to promote their independence, for example verbal prompting, role modelling or physical support.

Leaders demonstrated an in depth understanding of individuals’ complex health needs and how they were being met with joined up care including external partners and families where appropriate. For example, one person’s health needs had changed, and the provider had found out where the local defibrillator was held and organised training for staff on how to use this equipment if required. One leader told us, “It’s about trying to get people what they need, when they need it.”

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

People detailed choices they made. These included everyday choices such as what to wear, eat or where to go. People did not feel staff restricted them or made decisions for them but supported them to make decisions they wanted by ensuring they had the information needed. Professionals we spoke to confirmed this, one professional told us, “People participate in all choices being discussed about them and in my experience the service users are very satisfied with the service they are offered.”

People shared examples of how they had been supported to develop and maintain independent living skills in relation to accessing the community independently or household tasks. For example, a person told us how they had been supported to develop their independence and confidence accessing the community with a staggered plan, safely supported by staff who knew them well. Another person told us how they were supported to consider and weigh up risks, and how they could mitigate them. They told us about different things they wanted to do and the considerations they had when deciding how best to do them. An example was meal preparation considering the method, time available, kitchen utensils required and if staff were in the home or not.

Staff and leaders were able to provide examples of how people were supported to develop and maintain their independence. These included how they encouraged independence with personal care tasks, medicines, household tasks and developing confidence to access the community independently. The provider continuously reviewed people’s support needs and highlighted where staff support could be reduced as people’s independence developed.

Processes were in place to regularly review people’s care and support needs to ensure people’s independence was promoted. This included regular care plan reviews involving the person and their feedback and regular meetings with staff to discuss progress or changes with regard to their independence. In addition, a new programme called ‘Outcome Star’ had been implemented which involved working with individuals to set goals and monitor if their outcomes were achieved. People confirmed these care reviews took place and they were actively involved which meant people had choice and control over their care and treatment.

Systems were in place to support and strongly advocate for people to have their personal needs known and respected by other professionals. For example, for some people emergency vehicle sirens could result in confusion, emotional distress and prevent emergency professionals establishing a rapport with the individual – staff had ensured a risk assessment was in place to reflect this need and communicate this risk with emergency medical staff.

We observed people were able to access all areas of their homes including shared spaces and their own bedrooms as they wanted. In addition, we observed people freely accessing the community as and when they wanted, with one person using their own front door key. Equipment and tools were provided to support and promote independence, for example a perching stool, bus passes and timetables.

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.

People we spoke to confirmed staff were responsive. One person told us how staff recognised they were becoming anxious and supported them to engage in a calming activity and another person told us call bells were answered quickly.

Staff were able to describe indicators for each person they supported which prompted additional support and were able to detail proactive strategies to support people. For example, one person liked to go for a bus ride when anxious, the person confirmed staff were aware of this and offered the opportunity to go appropriately.

We observed staff were responsive to people and their body language when it indicated they were becoming anxious. We saw staff act on these observations, for example, one person was anxious about talking to us so staff responded positively and sat with the person until they felt comfortable and able to talk to us. This demonstrated a good understanding of individual support needs.

Processes were in place to obtain people’s feedback around the care they received. This included regular audits of people’s feedback, unannounced spot checks and regular staff supervisions. In addition, people confirmed they knew who they could speak to if they had any concerns.

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

Staff were positive about the provider and leaders. They told us leaders cared about people and staff. Staff also confirmed they had adequate rest periods and could access support if they needed it.

The provider had a wellbeing and care coordinator whose focus was on staff supervisions, appraisals, sickness and absence. Staff and records reviewed demonstrated regular supervisions and team meetings were held where topics discussed included staff wellbeing and any changing care needs to support staff to provide person centred care to people alongside additional specific training if required.