Winners Trophy

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 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 50 (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.

Person-centred language was not always being used in documents. For example, one person’s daily notes stated, “Pant and pad changes due to being dirty,” and another person’s care plan stated, “I may feel lazy and just put my clothes on without taking a shower or wash.” The provider’s audits had not picked up on the language used in people’s care plans and daily notes.

However, people told us staff treated them with kindness, compassion and dignity. One person told us, “They are all very nice, we are quite happy with them. They hold [person’s] hand and provide reassurance [during personal care], they treat [person] with dignity and respect.” Another person told us, “Staff are all very nice, they come in and do what they need to do, treat us with dignity and respect, always asks for consent and we feel comfortable with them in the house.” Partners provided positive comments such as, “They have gone over and above for the person, I observed the staff sometimes and they were all very kind and caring, they set the bar high.”

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. Whilst some care plans identified people’s background, work history, family members involved in their lives and cultural history, this was not consistent throughout all the care plans we reviewed.

However, staff showed a good understanding of people and their needs and gave examples of where they treated people as individuals. For example, one staff member told us, “We respect their religion, and one person wanted to pray whilst I was there and so they did it and I respected that.”

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 well-being.

One person’s daily notes showed staff had completed a task for a person however, the care plan stated they only needed prompting. The registered manager told us, “The information in the daily notes was written incorrectly, staff did not take away people’s independence and they would discuss with staff about recording notes.” However, this had not been picked up on audits completed by the provider. Also, it noted, the provider did not always act on feedback from people, for example, daily notes documented a person requested support to have more choice and control over their day-to-day life, however we found the provider had not followed this up with family members or professionals. The registered manager told us, “[Person] lives with dementia and short-term memory loss. [Staff] mentioned it as part of reporting. We gave [person] psychological support and reassurance when they are going through periods like this.” There was no evidence to demonstrate a review of the service user’s request had been attempted to ensure all aspects of their care remained to their preference.

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

Some people told us they had not received a care plan review when a person’s needs changed. Staff told us they would always follow information in people’s care plans and risk assessment when they responded to people’s needs. However, information about people’s needs was not always clear, accurate and up to date. Therefore, staff did not always have the information they needed to respond effectively to people’s needs.

However, people told us when they had contacted the registered manager directly, they received a response. Staff told us they could always contact the office if they needed any extra support and guidance. Staff told us they had enough time to provide support to people.

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

We received mixed feedback from staff about their well-being. Some staff told us they received regular supervisions and opportunities to raise their concerns, but others told us supervisions were not regular. Some staff told us the provider was supportive when they needed to take time off but there was the expectation that they fitted in with the needs of the service. The provider had accommodation for staff to access when working out of a different area, so they did not have to travel long distances between their home and the service area. Staff told us the accommodation was in a house owned by the provider and all the bills was paid for. The registered manager told us staff had access to a well-being application system which provided free counselling to support staff with any personal orwork-related issues. One staff member told us “[Manager] calls us now to make sure we’re ok. They do spot checks, risk assessments and check we’ve arrived and left people’s homes.” Another staff member told us, “There was a time I didn’t have money for transport, they helped me with a loan. I paid it back but didn’t have to pay interest.”