Main Site

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 inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Most people and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Comments included, “They are personable, caring and very attentive people with my relative”; “The carers generally had a good personality and very approachable and caring overall”.

Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s privacy. They were able to describe how they support people with their care while ensuring their dignity was protected.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We found information was missing from people’s care plans and risk assessments, such as sensory support or preference of the gender of the carer who supported them with personal care. In our conversations with the management team and staff we were assured this information was known, however it had not been recorded. After our inspection, we reviewed documentation confirming improvements had been made which included additional detail to care plans linked to people’s protected characteristics.

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.

People and relatives shared mixed feedback about how staff promoted people’s independence and choice. Their comments included, “Sometimes the carers are a bit bossy and that can upset me” and “Some carers need a little encouragement”.

Feedback from healthcare professionals was also mixed in this area. Some told us management team and staff required guidance and did not always take the initiative to engage with people who needed additional support. Others told us, “The carers are able to build therapeutic relationships, even with people who find it difficult to engage with staff. When rapport is built it is easy to encourage them to carry out personal care, eat and maintain their wellbeing.”

Detailed information on how staff could best support a person was not always recorded and this could pose a risk that people’s care was not always delivered in a way that promoted their independence and control.

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 worked well with people and their relatives to make sure people’s needs were met, including if there was a deterioration in health. Relevant healthcare professionals were involved and contacted, such as GPs and social workers.

The provider cared about and promoted the well-being of their staff. However, they did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were not fully supported to have access to all the training they required. For example, some staff had not completed specialist training linked to the needs of people they were supporting, in line with the provider’s training policy.

Supervisions were taking place, but appraisals were not. This had been identified by the provider and a plan put in place to address this. Competency checks of staff practice around medication were not always recorded; this was put in place after our inspection.

Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team.