South Manchester Care Limited

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Relatives shared positive feedback about some individual carers. One parent told us, “The regular carer is trained and is aware of (person) needs and can sense (person) sensory overload and know how much (person) can handle, and they ‘get him’.” Another parent said, “We have a regular carer comes who takes (person) out. If (person) wasn’t happy, they wouldn’t go out and I can see they do have a good time. If they eat out, they see if (person) can choose their own food because they will only eat specific foods and they know which ones they are and get (person) to voice it and prompt them to look for it.” A further relative described one carer as “Kind natured and fantastic with (person) goes swimming they come back happy.” They also told us, “If I could have (carers name) all the time, it would be great, always smiley and happy towards (child)… One day (carer) came and did not have their swimming kit and went and bought a new kit. That’s how good (carer) is…”

However, relatives also expressed dissatisfaction with how the service was managed. They told us the provider did not always respect their child's need for routine and consistency. One parent said, “Sometimes they don’t turn up, and I ring and the manager who says that the carer’s called in sick. I said to let me know and they say sorry, but it takes two minutes to send a message, and it still happens sometimes.” Another relative explained how carers not turning up or being late affects their child who “gets wound up waiting”.

Staff feedback indicated concerns about the culture within the service. Some staff told us managers communicated with them through an online communication platform in a manner they perceived as pressurising and derogatory.

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.

Care records contained limited personalised information. Where individualised information was recorded, it was often brief and lacked meaningful detail. Records focused primarily on tasks rather than providing clear guidance on delivering personalised care and support. For example, the records may list for a person to be supported with showering, but do not specify the individual preference on how they like their shower, the person strengths and what they can manage themselves and where they may need support.

As a result, people were not always placed at the centre of their care and support, and staff did not always have sufficient information to maximise people's potential and promote positive outcomes.

We were not assured people,and their families,were consistently involved in decisions about their care. Some families told us they had never seen care documentation produced by the provider.

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.

We saw evidence staff supported people to take part in activities they enjoyed within the community. Records showed people often engaged in two or more activities each day based on their preferences.

However, we also identified examples where opportunities to develop new skills such as cooking and participating in cleaning to increase independence had not been explored. The provider had not consistently recorded plans or provided structured support to help people achieve greater independence. This meant people may not have received the support needed to maximise their abilities and meet their individual goals.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Information contained within care records and policies did not always provide staff with the guidance they needed to support people safely. We found examples where staff had identified and raised concerns with a relative but had not escalated these concerns appropriately. These included marks on the person’s body and incorrect and dangerous positioning during feeding support. As a result, people’s immediate needs were not always met safely and effectively.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff feedback was mixed. Some staff spoke positively about the provider and told us they felt supported, well trained and treated fairly. However, other staff raised concerns about the leadership and management of the service. Staff told us managers were “muddling along”, were “not qualified for their roles” and “did not deal with safeguarding issues correctly”.

Several staff raised concerns about unprofessional communication on the provider's online chat platform. Some staff also reported concerns certain colleagues were being unfairly targeted. In addition, staff provided accounts of being asked to undertake duties outside their role, including deep cleaning within people's homes.

The provider shared feedback they had gathered from staff, which was positive. However, staff submitted this feedback directly to the provider and it was not anonymised. This meant staff could not provide feedback without being identified. The provider demonstrated initiatives to recognise staff contributions, including employee of the month awards and bonus schemes for staff who consistently produced high-quality records, demonstrated reliability, punctuality and commitment to allocated shifts.