Parry Healthcare Wiltshire

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 Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well supported, cared for, and treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff told us they knocked before entering rooms and always explained what they were doing, regularly checking it was ok. People told us staff were kind. One person we spoke to said, ‘I feel like they are family.’ Another person said, ‘They always close the door.’ However, some people we spoke to told us that ‘some staff are brilliant, [but] it depends on who you get’. We were told that ‘some staff gave choices’ and that some do not give the person privacy or knock before entering. This meant that people could not be sure that they would be treated with kindness, compassion and dignity all of the time.

However, staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

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, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. The provider had assistive technology in place to support a person whose first language was not English. People with communication needs had detailed care plans to ensure staff new how best to communicate with them. Care plans contained details of people’s preferences. One relative told us, ‘They can predict [person] needs’ and ‘they know [person]well’.

The provider promoted people’s independence, but not always ensuring people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Care records we saw contained details of what people liked to do for themselves.

Staff told us that they asked people how and what support they wanted. However, we spoke to a relative who told us that staff did not give enough time for the person to communicate fully and that they were ‘rushed’. This meant that they did not always have the time needed to make and communicate their choices. We were told by people and their relatives that they did not always know which staff was coming to support them. Relatives were not always given opportunity by staff to support their family member at times of distress. This meant service user were not involved in choosing staff that supported them.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff told us they had access to a 24hr on call system so they could gain support when required. However, we saw evidence that staff were late to visit people and the provider was only made aware of this lateness when the staff member registered their attendance on the electronic system. We saw that on more than one occasion staff had visited more than an hour later than planned. This meant that people were waiting for support which may have caused difficulties for those people who required time specific support.

Additionally, we spoke to people who told us that they were not contacted to inform them that their support would be late. We were told by one relative that staff ‘often left early’. Another person told us that support required on one occasion did not turn up leaving the person at risk of harm. This meant that people did not always receive the full support they had agreed to and may not have had access to the full support they required.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, supported and enabled them to always deliver person-centred care. Staff were supported through an induction when they started. The registered manager told us that this induction was flexible meaning if staff required further or longer support this would be provided. Staff told us that they are ‘treated well’. They said that a manager checked on them if they were late to ensure they were ok. Staff told us they knew how to complain.