RSBC Care 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 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 and staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were supported by carers who treated them with kindness and respect. One person told us, “The carers are kind. They are nice people, I’m pleased with them, they’re lovely.” Another person told us, “I can honestly say, the 3 carers who come here are the nicest people you’ll ever meet.”

Relatives told us staff built a positive rapport with them and the people they supported and they knew people well. One relative told us, “The carers are really good, [relative’s name] has a laugh and a joke with them. They’re like a family. I feel as if I know them”.

People and relatives told us staff were compassionate and empathetic. One relative told us a staff member had contacted them when a person had been upset to let them know so they could support them after the call had finished.

People were confident staff would respond to their needs quickly and support them in line with their care plans and told us they did not feel rushed when receiving care.

People told us staff respected their dignity and privacy. For example, staff ensured doors and curtains were closed when providing personal care to them.

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.

The provider was proactive in ensuring people’s needs were met in a way that suited them. The provider was flexible in respect to how they carried out care, adapting to people’s individual wishes and preferences. Staff promoted people’s strengths and recognised they all had different personal circumstances which required their care to be delivered differently. For example, the provider was flexible with call times and where care was delivered if it suited people’s individual needs.

Staff considered people’s communication needs and adapted their communication styles to support people with understanding them effectively.

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

People were supported by staff who respected their choices and enabled them to have control over their own care. People chose how they wanted their care delivered and staff provided care in the way they preferred.

People were supported by staff who encouraged them to maintain relationships which were important to them. People told us when they had visitors, care staff had made drinks for them and their visitors and had also returned at later times to enable them to enjoy their time with their friends.

Where people were able to access the local community, staff encouraged this and care was provided flexibly around their community engagement.

Staff supported people to be independent where they were able to do things for themselves. One person told us, “They do encourage me to do things for myself if needed”.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff raised concerns about safety but the provider did not always formally investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Risks relating to the governance of the service were not always understood and were overlooked which had the potential to place people at risk of harm.

Incidents, accidents and complaints were not always documented which meant the provider could not be assured they had identified patterns, learnt where things went wrong and taken appropriate action to mitigate risk to people. For example, people told us there had been isolated missed calls they had reported but there was no record of this.

People and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident they would not be treated negatively if they did so. One relative told us they had raised a concern about a member of staff which may have been a conflict of interests with the directors, but this was treated professionally and responded to immediately.

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

Staff were supported by the provider to deliver care that was person centred and focused on people’s individual needs. Staff were able to be flexible and adapt the care they provided to suit the needs of the individual person they were supporting.

Staff told us they were given the opportunity to share concerns with the provider and there was open dialogue between care staff and office staff which they appreciated. One staff member told us, “The office staff are compassionate, they understand our family situations, look after their workers, provide good pay and treat us like family and not employees.”

Staff felt they had sufficient time to provide care to people and were supported with transport to care calls if needed which was valuable.

People were supported by staff who felt respected and motivated by the provider to provide care in line with their family values.