Utopia Care Limited - Thurrock Branch

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.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Feedback from relatives and people were mostly positive about how caring staff were. A person told us, “We are both very happy with the care we receive. They [staff] do a really good job. Staff are all well-mannered and meet all our individual care needs.” A relative told us, “The carers are very respectful, and they all are very polite and kind.”

Staff were able to tell us about people's preferences and how they liked to be supported. A member of staff told us, ''I enjoy talking to people and understanding what they like or dislike. I love my work because of the people I support.''

We received positive feedback from a health professional. They told us, “There are currently no concerns regarding care staff’s skills and experience, while there are also enough staff to meet the needs of individuals being supported. Care staff that I have met recently appear to be of a caring nature, and the service continues to communicate with us promptly and consistently, as has always been the case.”

The service 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. Most people and their relatives spoke positively about how staff treated them as individuals. A relative told us, “They are very polite and nice to [relative].” Another relative told us, “The carers are lovely, they really are, they treat you like you were their family, so good." A person told us, “There is one particular carer who never rushes me and is very reassuring. A lot of them go above and beyond.”

Staff told us they worked hard to support people and meet their individual needs. Staff built relationships with people to provide support in a personalised way and how they wished to be supported.

However, most care plans did not include information about people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs and people’s daily care notes were not always person centred or accurate We found staff had not written individual entries for each interaction they had with people and had copied and pasted daily entries from each preceding day. This was discussed with the care manager on the day of our site visit who confirmed that staff were not making accurate entries. This meant we could not be assured people were receiving person-centred care.

The service 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. People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always personalised. They did not include information about people’s hobbies, interests and important relationships. Some people's personal history was either not recorded or sparse. Staff were not provided with enough information about the person's likes or dislikes to help understand them and initiate conversation. This meant we could not be assured people were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service 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. The care coordinator’s had regular contact with people and their relatives to seek feedback and these discussions were documented. The care manager told us no formal concerns or complaints had been raised either by people using the service or those acting on their behalf, the local authority or others since the domiciliary care service became operational. This concurred with information held by the Care Quality Commission.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff felt well supported working at the service and found it to be a positive experience for them. Feedback from staff was positive regarding the support they received from the care manager. A member of staff told us, “I really enjoy working for this company. The care manager is very approachable, and I don’t have to think twice before sharing any feedback.” The care manager had a number of systems in place to support and engage with staff. There was an open-door policy in the office and staff could access the office at any time to speak to management. A staff member told us, “I recently got carer of the month, and I have been asked if I would like a senior role. The care manager is very approachable, and she carries out my supervision.” Another staff member told us, “The management have been very supportive with things like mental health and family. They give good feedback they get from clients and give us advice on how to support people better. The care manager is very responsive, honestly whatever I try to ask her tries to sort out. The managers respect us, and I respect them.”