Care Quality Services IOW

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. 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 65 (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. Feedback from people and family members showed people were treated with kindness and compassion with privacy and dignity respected. People reported that some carers would go the ‘extra mile’ whilst others were less motivated. For example, we were told, “I’ve not had a crossed word with any of the carers. They [care staff] are nice, pleasant and bubbly. The carers definitely treat me with respect and dignity.” Whilst another person said, “The majority of the carers are lovely, and they are kind to me and they know my needs now.”

People told us staff would sometimes talk to each other in a language other than English which is not respectful to people who do not know what is being said about them. The registered manager told us they would remind all staff that this was unacceptable.

Staff treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Feedback from family members, staff and care plans indicated people were understood and treated as individuals. Some care plans included information about people’s personal histories and preferences others did not. Where people may have lacked capacity or had communication needs further information about preferences would be helpful to ensure previous preferences could be met.

People and family members told us they were treated as individuals. For example, a family member said, “Some carers get more deeply involved than others, but they are all good. One carer knitted a thick blanket for my relative, that is the sort of care and attitude of some carers.” A person told us, “Some of the carers don’t want to talk and just get on with the job, while some are very talkative which I would prefer because I’m otherwise very isolated.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. There were systems in place to ensure people received care which promoted their independence, choice and control. Care plan daily routines included information about what people could do for themselves. People felt that most of the care staff would support them to be as independent as possible and most offered choices.

Most staff were clear about promoting independence and choices. For example, a staff member said, “Care plans do give you some information but when you go in you find out more. Most of the care plan is what they want but it’s not always spot on. They [people] make their own choice really – they can’t always make their own choice but the ones that can do. Choose their food and clothes. They can’t all do their shopping but can do the list.”

The provider did not always ensure care staff were available when people required care meaning care staff could not always respond to people’s needs at the times people required them. A person told us, “They [care staff] can be up to 30 minutes late, so it impacts on the food and medication times.” Another person said, “The only weak areas are punctuality, for example; they [care staff] should be here around 08:30am and as I speak it’s now 10:15am and they still haven’t arrived. Sometimes I’ve waited hungry for my breakfast until 11:30am.” A third person said, “The staff are short at weekends. I’ve been given a roster for the call times but it’s useless, because the times keep changing. Sometimes they can be 45 to an hour late. They also need travel time.

Office staff confirmed that changes to planned care visits could be made if, for example, a person needed support to attend hospital or required a longer call such as following a fall or waiting for an ambulance. External professionals commented that delays in getting a response from the office about referrals could delay the commencement of a care package.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. Some staff felt valued and were clear that they could speak with the management team at any time and that their views, opinions and suggestions would be listened to. However, others did not. Some staff reported racism by other care staff and had raised these concerns with the office staff but felt they had not been listened to. Discussions with senior staff confirmed no action taken to support the integration of local and international staff. The registered manager agreed to consider ways that this could be improved.

Care staff identified that the response from the national on call service which operated out of office hours was not always responsive and could result in delays in their receiving guidance or in their not seeking guidance about individual situations or people increasing their stress and anxiety when at work. The registered manager informed us that some changes were planned to make the out of hours support more accessible for care staff.

The provider had a range of support available for staff including counselling and wellbeing services. The management team told us they encourage staff to speak up and seek support if they felt they needed this and staff well-being was considered with field and formal supervisions.