Re-Create Freedom

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 75 (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.

During our inspection visit, we observed staff interacted with people in a respectful and kind manner. A person told us, “Staff understand me, I love them, I get on with all the staff.” A relative said, “Staff are amazing and care.”

On their arrival at the service, people chose the bedroom they were going to stay in and staff offered to help them unpack, if this was declined staff respected it. Staff knocked on people’s bedroom door before entering and asked if they could enter.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care records included information about their diverse needs and conditions, how these affected their daily lives and how their needs were to be met. Care plans included people’s strengths, including what others admired about them, such as their kindness, consideration of others and humour. The documents stated what people wanted to get from their stay at the service, such as developing their independence and building relationships with peers.

Staff had received training in people’s diverse needs including learning disability and autism, and their induction pathway included training in areas such as epilepsy and equality and diversity.

Staff knew people well and communicated effectively with them, in turn we saw people responded to the staff in a positive way. A relative told us, “[Staff] listen about [family member] who is unique… [family member] sees it like [their] holidays… [they are] made to feel special, [family member] picks what [they] want to do, [staff] take on board what [family member] likes.”

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

Feedback from staff, people, relatives and records reviewed demonstrated people’s choice and independence were promoted and respected. The development of people’s independence in areas such as preparing their meals and doing laundry was supported and kept under review to further support people with their aspirations. A person told us, “I pick my room when I get here…[staff] help my independence skills, cooking, strip the bed.” A relative told us, “They are good teaching life skills, [family member] does washing up… does cooking, stripped the bed.”

During our visits we saw people were asked to plan their meals and activities for their stay. They then went to the supermarket to purchase the items for the meals they had chosen. There was no expectation that, if more than one person was in the service, they agreed on the meals they would have. We saw people choose different things and this was respected. A relative told us, “[Staff] have listened in how to offer [family member] choices, if they ask a certain way [family member] is more willing to say what [they] want.”

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’s records included information about triggers that caused them distress and anxiety, and actions were in place to reduce these. There was a traffic light system for rostering staff to support people during their stay, depending on the levels of support required. For example, some people required the support of one to one care staff for issues such as their dependency levels and/or how people expressed their distress. Some people’s records showed they did not like noisy environments, and how this was to be avoided.

The registered manager told us they were trying to match people who used the service to reduce the risks of distress and incompatibility. Where incidents had happened, a review was completed to assess whether people were able to share their stay with others to reduce risks of a reoccurrence. The registered manager told us how they worked with people and relatives to reduce the risks of people not being able to use the service safely and adapted their stay to reduce these risks.

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

Staff were provided with training to meet the needs of people who used the service. In line with the assessment of people’s needs, some people required the support of only one staff member. To support staff there was training provided and procedures in place for lone working.

The registered manager told us how staff had developed in their role, and there was the introduction of team leaders. The team leaders would be providing supervision to staff and had received training to do so. Records showed supervisions were planned. A staff member told us how they had recently had a supervision in line with the new system.