East Hampshire DCA

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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.

Relatives spoke positively about the way staff interacted with people. One person told us, “The staff are hardworking, and I do see that staff are kind and compassionate”, and another relative told us, “[Staff] and management are extremely kind and interact with her.”

During the inspection, we observed warm and respectful interactions between staff and people. Staff engaged with people in a kind and considerate manner and demonstrated an understanding of people’s right to privacy. For example, one staff member did not allow us to enter people’s flats until they had first checked with the individuals, they were comfortable with this. This showed staff upheld people’s rights to make decisions about their own living space and ensured consent was obtained before access was granted, reflecting a culture of respect.

The provider treated people as individuals and delivered care that was personalised and responsive to their needs.

Staff understood people’s dietary and mobility requirements, ensuring these were consistently met and adjustments were made where needed. People’s communication needs were identified, recorded and shared with staff. The service was working towards offering more inclusive and accessible communication aids to support people to express themselves clearly and be involved in decisions about their care. During observations, staff treated people with personalised care and genuine respect.

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.

We found some restrictions on people’s freedom and independence had not been appropriately assessed. For example, locked fridges, and there was no clear evidence these restrictions were in line with best interest decisions or least restrictive options. Although staff and people using the service described people’s personal goals, including planned holidays, care plans did not evidence these choices.

We also found concerns regarding people’s choice and access to meaningful activity. Feedback indicated some people had limited opportunities to be active or make everyday choices. Relatives expressed greater focus was needed on promoting choice, ensuring options were accessible, and evidencing progress towards personal goals.

Tenancy arrangements did not fully support people’s independence, choice and control. The Real Tenancy Test, a nationally recognised tool used to assess the validity and robustness of tenancy agreements in supported living settings, identified that people did not have full autonomy over key aspects of their tenancy. Tenancy agreements were lengthy, there were no easy‑read versions, and they had not been reviewed for many years. No mental capacity assessments had been completed to determine whether people were able to understand their tenancy terms, and no best‑interest decisions were recorded where individuals may have lacked capacity. This meant the provider could not demonstrate people were enabled to make informed decisions or fully exercise their rights as tenants.

We observed staff promoting everyday choices. People were supported to choose their food, activities, and how they spent their time. Staff consulted with people about daily decisions.

These inconsistent practices meant people were not always fully empowered to make or act on decisions important to them.

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.

Staff were attentive and responsive, taking immediate action to reduce any discomfort, concern, or distress experienced by individuals.

One person living at the service told us they would speak to the registered manager if they were upset or worried. They also named other people they would speak to in the absence of the registered manager.

A professional told us, “I believe that the manager/staff had made a referral at the right time to make changes and reduce this patient’s future problems.”

Staff were available during the day and the night, with staff also having access to a 24-hour on-call system for additional support if required. Staff had completed positive behaviour support training to better support people when communicating through negative behaviours.

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

One staff member told us, “The manager will always be thankful and appreciate us,” and another member of staff told us, “From time to time they ask me if I am okay, if I’m not looking myself, she’ll ask if I’m alright, it shows that they care.”

The management team worked closely with staff, providing regular support and guidance. The service had introduced a ‘staff member of the month’ scheme to recognise and reward good practice.