Salis Care C.I.C.

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 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people receiving person centred care.

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.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and staff respected their privacy and dignity. Relatives told us staff knew people well and had formed good relationships. One relative said, “The staff are always very polite and welcoming. They are very kind with [relative], they have a beautiful relationship.” We observed people appeared at ease spending time with staff and trusting relationships had developed. Staff addressed people with warmth and respect. One staff member told us, “All of the team want the best for them [people], and want them to feel happy.” We observed people were supported with their personal care in private and staff gained people’s consent prior to going into their room.

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. Staff were able to tell us about the people they supported and describe how they preferred to be supported. However, as detailed in other areas of this report, important information about individual preferences and routines were not reflected in people’s care records. For example, support plans for one person did not highlight information regarding things which were important to them. This meant there was a risk of people receiving inconsistent support and increasing people’s anxiety.

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. Some relatives told us the opportunities to take part in a range of leisure activities had reduced and long-standing routines being broken. They felt this had led to an increase in their people’s anxiety and risks to their health. Support records showed that whilst people were supported to go out regularly, for some people the variety of things they did was limited and did not involve more active pursuits such as swimming, long walks and trampolining they had previously enjoyed. Staff were re-introducing different communication methods as to how they should approach people and offer choices of things to do. However, no set plans regarding how people would be supported to try things they had previously enjoyed had been developed with them or their family. In other instances, people were supported to go out regularly. Observations and records showed one person made their own choices regarding where they went and how they spent their time as they preferred not to follow a set routine.

The provider listened to and understood people’s immediate needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. A relative told us staff always responded to their relative in a positive way. They told us they were confident staff would not leave them to be upset of in discomfort.

Staff we spoke with were aware of people’s needs and we observed they built positive and trusting relationships with people. Staff told us of things they knew were important to people. For one person this was going to the shop at a particular time and for another person what things they wanted to watch on the television. Staff were observed to sit and spend time with people, showing an interest in what they were doing and generating conversation.

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 told us that although they felt listened to by the manager they found supporting people with their anxiety and distressed behaviour difficult at times. They told us they felt further training and guidance would be of benefit. Records showed that people’s positive behaviour support plans (PBS) were not always up to date and one person did not have a PBS plan. The lack of guidance relating to individual needs placed staff at a greater risk should an incident occur. The manager and staff told us updated training in relation to staff keeping themselves safe had been provided to staff and records confirmed this. They told us they were in the process of working with other professionals to update people’s PBS plans prior to working with staff to implement them.