Newday Healthcare Professionals 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 remained 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. A person told us, “We are very happy with the care we receive. They [staff] do a really good job. Staff are all well-mannered and meet all our individual care needs.” A relative told us, “The carers are very respectful, and they all are very polite and kind.”

Staff were able to tell us about people's preferences and how they liked to be supported. A member of staff told us, ''I enjoy talking to people and understanding what they like or dislike. I love my work because of the people I support.”

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

Most care plans included limited information about people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs. We found staff had written detailed individual entries for each interaction and the support they delivered. However, these did not reflect the information in the person's care plan, reducing assurance that the care being provided was consistent, accurate and aligned with the person’s assessed needs. For example, staff documented that they had administered medicines to a person; however, the care plan recorded that the person did not need support with medicines. This inconsistency meant that staff were not always guided by the person’s assessed needs or preferences, limiting assurance that people were treated as individuals and received personalised care.

Most people and their relatives spoke positively about how staff treated them as individuals. A relative told us, “They are very polite and nice to [relative].” Another relative told us, “The carers are lovely, they really are, they treat you like you were their family, so good." A person told us, “There is one particular carer who never rushes me and is very reassuring. A lot of them go above and beyond.”

Staff told us they worked hard to support people and meet their individual needs. Staff built relationships with people to provide support in a personalised way and how they wished to be supported.

The service 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’s care plans and risk assessments were not always personalised. They included limited information about people’s hobbies, interests and important relationships. Some people's personal history was either not recorded or sparse. Staff were not provided with enough information about the person's likes or dislikes to help understand them and initiate conversation. This meant we could not be assured people were supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service 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. The registered manager had regular contact with people and their relatives to seek feedback; however, these discussions were not always documented. The registered manager told us no formal concerns or complaints had been raised either by people using the service or those acting on their behalf, the local authority or others since the domiciliary care service became operational. This concurred with information held by the Care Quality Commission.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff felt well supported working at the service and found it to be a positive experience for them. Feedback from staff was positive regarding the support they received from the registered manager. A member of staff told us, “I really enjoy working for this company. The manager is very approachable, and I don’t have to think twice before sharing any feedback.” The registered manager had a number of systems in place to support and engage with staff. There was an open-door policy in the office and staff could access the office at any time to speak to management.