Axis Care Group 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 interacted well with people they were supporting. A staff member supported a person who was demonstrating some minor symptoms of their condition. They offered reassurance, spoke slowly and reminded them of the facts of the situation which helped to relieve some of the persons anxiety. Another staff member at another person’s home demonstrated their diligence in ensuring the person, who was asleep at the time, was consistently monitored by them. The staff prioritised the people they were supporting which demonstrated their caring nature.

Staff told us how all staff they work with showed compassion and genuinely cared about the people they support. They also were able to provide examples of how they maintained people’s dignity during showering and using toilet facilities. They mentioned ensuring curtains were closed and having multiple towels to ensure dignity was maintained whilst helping the person to dry themselves.

A person we spoke with confirmed staff were very caring, respectful and treated them with dignity. They confirmed liking all the staff who supported them and feeling safe in their presence. The person also commented on the management being “very nice and kind.”

The provider did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider did not always obtain and record information about people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, life histories, culture and unique backgrounds. This limited the staff team’s ability to provide fully person-centred care in line with people’s needs, including protected characteristics.

The REACH standards outline how people should have choice over where they live, who they live with and the staff who support them, but this was not evidenced.

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.

It was not always clear that people understood their rights. People were not always included in decisions about their care. For example, one person’s access to their belongings was restricted by staff. This approach was decided upon for safety reasons, but we did not receive evidence of this decision being made in partnership with the person or via a best interest meeting.

The provider did not adhere to the REACH principles, meaning there was limited evidence demonstrating how people had been involved to make decisions about their care, including where they want to live and who they want to live with.

A person was unaware they had a care plan or risk assessments in place. This is important as being aware of these can give people a sense of ownership and control over their life. They can make informed decisions about their care, ask questions and help shape the support they receive.

However, a person told us their independence was always promoted by the staff. They stated, “When we go food shopping, I will always pick what I want to eat” and “I have a passion for cooking, and I will tell staff what food I would like to eat and help to prepare it.” They also stated how they get out of bed at a time that suited them and they could spend time in their room if they wanted privacy and this was always respected.

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.

Daily notes entries revealed how staff had supported a person who was experiencing a lapse with their psychological state and supported them by providing reassurance, understanding and assertive responses which allowed the person to know they were safe.

People’s care plans and risk assessments clearly explained how the person communicated pain or distress. For example, for one person, their care plan stated, “I will indicate this by rubbing or touching the area where I am experiencing pain.” Staff were knowledgeable about how the person indicated pain.

A person told us how they felt confident staff understood when they were potentially lapsing or relapsing and responded well to such signs. They said, “The staff understand me, they are always paying attention and know what to do to support me…they are very good at spotting when I am feeling sad or angry and they help me.”

Partners felt confident the provider would respond appropriately to people’s immediate needs. A social worker stated, “I feel that they are able to recognise issues early and to escalate concerns promptly.”

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

The provider monitored staff wellbeing through supervisions and appraisals. They had a culture of recognition and achievement which was evidenced through a carer of the month and carer of the year award.

The provider was subscribed to a scheme which provided counselling, training and further support if required.

The staff felt well supported by their leaders who they felt were always accessible for support.

A lone worker risk assessment was in place for all staff supporting people in the service. It clearly identified potential risks to both staff and people, outlined safe working procedures, and ensured staff knew how to escalate concerns.