Nobilis Care Southampton

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 inspection 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; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (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.

People said staff treated them with kindness and respect, describing positive relationships and strong trust with regular carers. They felt supported at their own pace, particularly during personal care, and did not feel rushed.

Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy, for example by knocking before entering homes and maintaining cleanliness by ensuring their shoes were clean. People said staff communicated in a respectful and familiar way, helping them feel at ease.

The provider had received compliments about the kindness of staff and the positive impact of the support provided.

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

People told us they were treated as individuals. They told us that care and support was delivered in line with their needs and preferences.

People who were initially reluctant to receive care and support were supported sensitively, with staff taking a gradual approach to building trust and developing effective working relationships. For example, 1 person was reluctant to engage in any support services but was at risk of self-neglect. The provider organised their care flexibly and supported staff to build a positive working relationship with the person until they were comfortable receiving support. This approach had a positive impact on the person’s health and wellbeing.

The registered manager had a good understanding of The Accessible Information Standard, to help identify, record, and meet people’s specific communication needs and ensure information was accessible. There were arrangements in place to provide people with information in a variety of formats to meet different communication needs. For example, larger fonts, via phone call and different languages. This helped to ensure information was accessible.

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

There were multiple examples of people being supported to maintain their independence and reduce their reliance on paid care. For example, 1 person was helped to access a falls alarm, reducing risks associated with living alone. Another was supported to take medicines independently, reducing the need for staff support over time. The provider demonstrated a proactive approach in reviewing people’s care needs and liaising with commissioners when care hours could be reduced as people regained their skills and independence.

Staff gave practical examples of how they promoted independence in people’s homes. They explained how they avoided taking over tasks unnecessarily. Care plans provided clear guidance on areas where support was required and where people wished to remain independent. Staff showed a good understanding of responding flexibly to people’s changing needs, including providing additional support on days when individuals required it, ensuring care remained person-centred.

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.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people received additional support if they were unwell or their needs changed. For example, if a person was unwell and required medical attention, the provider re-provisioned staff’s following calls to ensure they could stay with the person until medical professionals arrived.

Staff were pro-active in recognising where people may be struggling and require additional support. This was often in areas outside their commissioned care remit. In these situations, the provider worked with people to identify, discuss and make plans to address issues. They reported concerns to commissioning authorities and agreed adapted or expanded packages of care. For example, for 1 person who had a diagnosis of diabetes, staff had concerns around their nutrition. After discussions with the person, it was agreed with commissioners that an additional call for shopping was put in place. This helped to ensure they had access to food, which greatly improved the management of their medical condition.

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

Overall, staff were positive about the support they received at work from senior staff. The provider actively engaged with staff through feedback surveys, team meetings and individual supervision meetings to gain their feedback and promote their wellbeing. The provider had lone working policies in place and systems to monitor staff’s working hours and patterns. This helped to ensure they had regular breaks and were supported with their personal circumstances. Staff told us they were informed about changes to their planned care rota in a timely manner, and that senior staff explained the rationale for any amendments. This supported staff in maintaining a consistent approach when providing care.