Almag Healthcare 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.

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 70 (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.

People spoke positively about the caring approach of staff. One relative said, “I'm really pleased with the service that's provided, the care staff appeared genuinely caring and supportive and want to do a good job.”

People using the service and their relatives reported that consistency of care from regular staff was improving.

Care plans reflected the importance of delivering support that upheld dignity and respect, while promoting choice and independence. Guidance for staff clearly emphasised these values.

Staff were also positive about working for the provider and felt their wellbeing was supported. One staff member said, “Staff welfare is supported and considered. The manager is very approachable, and we can ring them at any time. There’s an out‑of‑hours number we can call. I’ve had to use it once and they were very responsive and helped me. I’ve worked for other care companies where communication and getting hold of somebody when you needed them was really difficult. I find this service much better.”

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.

As reported in the Key Questions of Safe and Effective, the provider’s assessment and review systems required strengthening. This was necessary to ensure people’s holistic care and support needs were accurately reflected and aligned with their individual routines, preferences, and protected characteristics. Whilst some care plans included information about people’s backgrounds, this was not consistent. This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to deliver personalised, well‑informed care.

A person who used the service told us they frequently had to remind staff about their care and support needs. This occurred following a hospital admission and placed additional strain on the individual at a time when they were still recovering. The lack of up‑to‑date and comprehensive information in their care plan contributed to this experience.

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

Care plan guidance for staff included the importance of promoting people’s independence and choice. People’s daily records completed by staff, showed how independence and choice making was encouraged and supported.

A relative told us of the positive impact the care package was having on their relation. They said, “It's made a huge difference to my relation, their wish was to remain at home at the end stage of their life and without the care agency, they wouldn't be able to do that.”

Another relative told us of how the service had made a difference to them. They said, “The support is really important to me I feel that I've been given my life back.”

The registered manager told us how they tried to accommodate people’s staff’s gender preference and that this was an area of continued improvement.

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.

A person who used the service and relatives gave examples of overall, how well staff and the registered manager, responded to requests for care times to be changed to support heath appointments.

Staff told us how they provided care and support to people at times of anxiety and a deterioration in health and wellbeing. This included providing reassurance and liaising with relatives, the GP and other health and social care services or emergency services.

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 working for the service. They told us they felt well supported, valued, and spoke highly of the registered manager’s approachable and supportive leadership style. This included a clear focus on staff wellbeing.

Staff confirmed that reasonable adjustments were made to support them in their roles. This included offering choice and flexibility around work patterns, particularly for those with caring responsibilities, which helped staff maintain a healthy work–life balance and continue providing consistent care.