The Caring Company Rutland 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or 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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People we spoke with told us staff were kind caring and compassionate. One person said, I am not rushed, if there is something they have not finished, they leave it for the next visit. Last week when I had a hospital appointment the carer made sure she was here when I got home. I’m fond of them, they even watered my plants for me during the drought, they have got time for you.”

Another said about the staff, “They are decent honest people, they treat me as a real person, they are thoughtful and considerate.”

A relative said about the staff, “They know all about [family member], they sit and talk to them.”

The provider did not always make sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People we spoke with told us staff understood their needs. However, care plans had limited information about people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs. They did not include robust information about people’s communication needs. There was limited information about people’s preferences, strengths and aspirations or information considerate of people’s protected characteristics.

While staff had established positive relationships with people, the provider did not have sufficient oversight or feedback from people about their experiences of the service.

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

People told us they had choices and could follow their chosen daily routines. One person said, “I can choose if I have a shower in the morning or at night.” However, one person said they could not go to bed as late as they would like because there were not enough staff to come at the time they preferred.

Care plans set out what staff could do to promote independence such as setting out a person’s clothes in order so they could dress independently with verbal prompts.

People were supported to access activities at home and in the local community.

People who may not have capacity did not have best interest decisions in place to promote their rights, choice and control.

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.

A staff member we spoke with was able to describe action they took when a person had a fall. This included making them safe and comfortable and seeking medical attention.

A care plan for one person described when a person may need additional support and reassurance but did not describe what staff should do to provide this other than, ‘Provide reassurance’.

Another person’s care plan stated staff must follow routines and use non-verbal gestures to effectively communicate and prevent anxiety. There was limited detail regarding preferred routines and communication. However, people received care and support from consistent teams of staff who had established a relationship with them.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received a limited response to our requests for staff feedback about their experiences of working at the service. As a result, we were unable to gather sufficient evidence to comment on staff views within this key question.

One staff member we spoke with told us they were happy in their role and felt supported by the management team.

Some staff had contacted us prior to this inspection regarding the way their reduction in hours and termination or contract had been managed, they did not feel changes had been communicated effectively, or they had not been given enough notice. The provider told us they had been obliged to take this action in order to comply with home office rules for sponsored staff who have to work a set number of each week in line with the sponsorship license.

The provider told us they had held meetings to inform staff about these changes but there were no minutes recorded of these meetings. We could not be assured staff had been provided with this information.

Staff had not been receiving support from their managers through staff supervision and had not had opportunities for effective communication through staff meetings.

The provider had staff wellbeing and a lone working policy as required.