Visiting Angels Northamptonshire

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 since it was registered in April 2024. 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 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. Staff treated colleagues from partner organisations with respect.

Feedback from people was that staff were kind, caring and compassionate. They told us staff addressed individuals by their preferred name and always respected their dignity. A person said, “When they are carrying out personal care they close the doors.”

Care records completed by staff demonstrated people received support with personal care, including oral care, hair washing, including if they were supported to have a shower or full body wash.

Relatives spoke positively about the staff; describing them as caring and friendly. A relative told us, “They make sure they close doors and curtains when carrying out personal care. They talk to them throughout any procedures. [Person name] always looks very clean.”

Staff clearly understood how to promote dignity and privacy during personal care supporting the feedback we received from relatives. They spoke respectfully about people and demonstrated a good understanding of their individual needs, preferences and backgrounds.

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, aspirations, backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People told us they generally felt treated as an individual. For example, a person told us, “They always ask me how I am, have a chat and a cup of tea with me, they make sure I am decent if anyone visits.”

Staff were familiar with people's routines, preferences and wishes, and these were respected in practice. Care records included information about people's interests, strengths and abilities. However, some records lacked detail about people's backgrounds and diverse needs, which may reduce staff's understanding of their individual preferences and what is important to them.

The manager told us the service did not currently support anyone with identified faith or cultural needs, and that people using the service were all white British. Although we saw no evidence that this had negatively impacted people, records should be fully completed to ensure staff have appropriate guidance to meet any religious, cultural or other diverse needs. The provider acknowledged this and confirmed it would be addressed as part of a review of care records and the wider service audit.

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 their assessments considered their abilities and the level of support they required. Care plans included guidance for staff on supporting people to maintain their independence, including when health conditions affected their abilities.

People and staff provided examples of individuals being supported to make choices and remain in control of their daily lives. For example, records showed that when a person completed tasks independently, staff checked they were safe, offered additional support if needed, and ensured they were comfortable before leaving.

People told us they were involved in reviewing their care. However, records did not always clearly demonstrate how people had been involved in decision-making or how their views and feedback had influenced care planning. The provider acknowledged this and confirmed it would be addressed as part of a review of care records and the wider service audit.

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.

People felt staff were caring and responsive to individual needs. For instance, the care provided was adapted to suit individual preferences including times of visits. Relatives told us they felt staff were responsive to their family member’s needs and risks. One relative told us, “Staff would contact the district nurse if they were concerned about [Person name’s] skin and then inform me of the outcome.”

Overall, discussions with people, relatives, and staff showed that staff knew the people they supported well and were able to anticipate and respond effectively to their needs.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. Systems and processes did not always support staff to deliver person-centred care. For example, newly appointed staff had not received timely supervision to ensure they felt supported in their roles.

Although these staff had completed shadow shifts with experienced senior staff, they were working independently without formal competency checks or sufficient oversight of their practice. This concern was raised with the leaders, who took action and assured us that staff would not work unsupervised until their competence and practice was assessed, reducing further risks to both staff and people.

Staff supervision was not always provided consistently. However, staff told us they felt well supported and were confident they could approach senior staff, the manager, or the provider for advice, support, or to discuss any concerns. Staff meetings were used to share key information and updates and provided opportunities for staff to raise concerns and contribute ideas and discuss service improvements.

Staff said rotas were usually shared one to two weeks in advance and generally allowed sufficient time for breaks between visits. Feedback about out-of-hours support from the manager and senior staff was mixed, although staff said calls or messages were eventually responded to.

Overall, staff told us they felt supported by their colleagues and manager and had access to a confidential employee assistance programme for advice and services, including bereavement support. They told us, “We get carer of the month and carer of the company, which is company-wide” and “We get wellbeing support including mental health.”