GreyInsights

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 were not always supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 55 (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 supported by staff who spoke fondly about the people they supported. We observed some interactions with people where you could see staff and people had built a positive relationship. We observed some interactions where people and staff showed compassion for each other. However, feedback from people they did not always describe that staff were had treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. One example where some staff set a bedtime for people when they did not want to go to bed. This did not always consider people’s individual preferences and desires.

People were treated as individuals; however, the staff did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff did not consistently demonstrate a person-centred approach to care. While some individuals were supported to engage in activities that reflected their personal interests and preferences, others did not receive the same level of personalised support. There was no evidence that people were routinely encouraged to share their life stories, values, or future aspirations, and this information was not reflected in care planning.

Care plans lacked detail about what people could do independently, what mattered most to them, and the qualities they valued in the staff supporting them. This limited the ability of staff to deliver truly individualised care. However, people were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them. One person told us they see their family regularly and speak with them daily.

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.

People were not always supported to have full choice and control of their daily lives. Daily records and observations showed limited evidence of staff encouraging individuals to carry out tasks for themselves. In some cases, support was overly directive, rather than enabling. However, we did observe one occasion where a person was actively involved in a household task, demonstrating that opportunities for independence were possible when appropriately supported.

The provider did not always listen to or understand people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff did not consistently respond to people’s needs in the moment or take action to minimise discomfort, concern, or distress. We observed people communicating verbally and through body language to express their preferences.

However, in incidents we reviewed, staff were unable to explain how they ensured they understood and met people’s immediate needs in line with their care plans. In addition, further development is needed to ensure staff have every opportunity to recognise and respond to what people are communicating.

For example, one individual used Makaton to communicate, yet staff were not fully equipped or trained to engage with them effectively. This lack of training can limit people's ability to express themselves and make choices about their care and daily lives.

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

Staff shared they felt supported by the management and that they valued the staff. Overall wellbeing was described as good, recent changes to the management team had been challenging, with staff noting that each manager worked differently. Despite this, staff reported feeling more able to approach the current manager and recognised positive changes taking place. One staff member said, “The management team is really supportive. They are always available if staff need advice or guidance and they are approachable.” However, opportunities for staff to meet and reflect were not consistent. This lack of regular supervision could limit opportunities for staff to reflect on their practice, receive support, and contribute to service improvement.