Change Grow Live Barnet

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

At the last inspection, the provider was asked to ensure staff consistently demonstrated dignity and respect and to strengthen training in this area. At this inspection, people continued to tell us staff treated them with kindness and respect, and we observed calm, private interactions where staff gave people time to speak and checked understanding before moving on. Leaders had reinforced expectations following an isolated incident where behaviour did not fully meet standards, including asking all staff to read the ‘Behaviour that Challenges’ policy and prioritising a workshop on responding to challenging situations. These actions reduced the risk of similar events affecting people’s experience. However, not all staff had completed dignity and respect training.

Leaders also took steps to support staff wellbeing, introducing staff achievement awards to recognise commitment and hard work. These actions aimed to promote a positive culture and sustain compassionate care despite workforce pressures.

Care planning reflected individual needs and preferences, and all records reviewed contained personalised goals set by the person. Staff adapted communication for language and literacy needs and considered cultural factors. People were supported to make informed choices, with flexible appointments and practical help such as assistance with GP appointments. Access to communal computers enabled people to use online resources and self-management tools.

Systems were in place to respond to immediate needs, including daily allocation of first-responder roles and use of panic alarms. Incidents of aggression were discussed in daily meetings. However, some staff reported delays in response and gaps in confidence or training for first-responder duties and device use. Staff also noted variable management visibility during incidents. Leaders were aware of these concerns and had begun addressing them.

Staff told us they had access to wellbeing initiatives such as supervision and debriefing after challenging situations, and volunteers described feeling valued and supported. Survey results reflected mixed views: staff reported strengths in trust and skill development but lower scores for involvement in decision-making, recognition and managing change. Some staff reported work-related stress and occasions of working while unwell, which could affect their ability to maintain compassionate interactions if not addressed.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service 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 told us staff were kind and respectful. During our visit we observed calm, private interactions, with staff giving people time to speak and checking understanding before moving on. This helped people feel comfortable discussing sensitive or complex issues.

Staff described one isolated incident where care did not fully meet expected standards of respectful behaviour. Records and CCTV review showed staff used verbal direction and, at points, guiding contact to prevent entry into a restricted area. Evidence confirmed the incident was investigated promptly. Leaders identified learning on de‑escalation, consistent staff messaging, and use of alarms and first‑responder protocols.

We observed caring day‑to‑day practice and saw that leaders had reinforced expectations following the incident (for example, asking all staff to read the ‘Behaviour that Challenges’ policy and prioritising a ‘Challenging Situations: Safe Response’ workshop).

The service 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, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care planning reflected people’s views and needs. All 10 care and treatment records contained personalised plans with goals set by the person. Staff used interpreters and adapted communication for language and literacy needs and considered cultural factors.

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

People were supported to make informed choices and to access practical support that maintained independence. Staff explained options, adapted contact to need and offered flexible appointments. Practical support included help with GP appointments. Three communal computers supported access to online resources and self-management tools.

The service 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.

Systems were in place to respond to immediate needs. Policy emphasised de-escalation and use of panic alarms, and daily first-responder roles were allocated. Incidents of aggression were discussed in daily meetings.

However, some staff reported delays in response and gaps in training or confidence in first-responder duties and device use. Staff also noted variable management visibility during incidents. An increase in incidents of aggression was highlighted in daily meetings. Leaders were aware of and addressing these needs.

The service 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.

Staff told us they had access to wellbeing initiatives such as supervision, induction check‑ins and debriefing after challenging situations. Volunteers described positive experiences of support and said they felt valued in their roles.

However, survey results reflected a mixed picture. The 2024 staff survey (18 responses; average score 6.0) showed strengths in trust and opportunities for skill development but lower scores for involvement in decision‑making, recognition and managing change. The volunteer survey (10 responses; average score 8.3) was broadly positive but raised similar concerns about recognition and involvement. Some staff reported work‑related stress and occasions of working while unwell, which could affect their ability to maintain compassionate interactions if not addressed.

Leaders had introduced staff achievement awards to celebrate hard work, commitment and passion, as noted in governance meeting minutes. While these initiatives promote positive recognition, they were not explicitly linked to survey feedback and therefore may not fully address staff concerns about involvement and recognition.