Carinyo 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 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 65 (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 confirmed they were treated with kindness and dignity. A relative told us, “They (staff) are very kind and caring. My Mum, she was very against someone living in the house, but she’s been very happy with the situation.”

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.

People confirmed staff treated them as individuals, however, one person told us, they didn’t wish to be supported by the provider and their next of kin, who was employed by the provider, had arranged it for them. They told us, “I’m afraid it was done for me, originally, I did say I had never heard of these people from Manchester...it was my advisor and he took over everything...my advisor said I’m having these people from Manchester, I did have 1-2 words with him, it’s not what I wanted. I have had (them) since then, they’re very nice and I’m happy but it’s not what I asked him to do for me; he kept saying we’re doing the best for me.”

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

People confirmed their independence was promoted. One person told us, “Well I’m not independent but they’re helping me a lot, I’m getting stronger I was in hospital for 2 months. I couldn’t walk but they’ve helped me a lot and exercise me every day.”

A relative told us, “They’re doing very well, she’s getting on very well and she’s really improved since getting the carers, they’re doing the physio with her every few weeks. They do the exercises every day. She broke her hip, so they go for a walk with her walker around the corridor of the flat and they try to get her moving a bit.”

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.

People told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns and staff listened to them. Both people and a relative confirmed that staff responded promptly whenever immediate needs arose.

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 did not always feel supported, particularly when they raised concerns about their hours and pay. Some staff told us there had been improvements since the registered manager joined the organisation, and they felt able to contact them for wider support when needed.

However, the provider had not considered how the live‑in care model could impact staff wellbeing, including the risk of fatigue, stress or isolation when working for extended periods without breaks or regular face‑to‑face contact. This meant the provider could not demonstrate they had assessed or mitigated the risks associated with this way of working for staff or for the people they supported.