Vintage Revelations Gloucestershire

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 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 other organisations with kindness and respect.

We received mainly positive feedback from people and their relatives about the kindness of staff and their interactions. Some people told us about their favourite staff members. People made comments such as, “They are very nice to me”; “They are nice enough and are gentle” and “The carers are nice, the two this morning were lovely.”

People told us staff were compassionate and caring. One person told us, “I am happy with the care.” Relatives also spoke positively about the care provided and said staff treated their family members with dignity. One relative told us, “The carers are good so far, they are kind and they know what they are doing, they understand his illness and treat him very kindly.” Another relative said, “The carers are very good, and they have a good relationship with [relative] and keep him informed of any concerns and advise on creams for chafing on his skin for example.”

People were provided with a service user guide and yearly newsletter which informed them of the services terms and conditions and latest news and updates from the service.
 

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, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People reported staff supported them without discrimination or judgement. Staff knew people well and could describe their personal care preferences and daily routines.

The provider shared several case studies of how the service had supported people to improve their quality of life and how this had positively impacted on people. For example, staff had supported people to engage and continue with their hobbies such as music and art. The provider had ensured staff took the time with people to celebrate their special occasions, such as birthdays and seasonal celebrations.

Whilst records of people’s backgrounds, strengths, and protected characteristics were minimal in people’s care plans, we found no impact on people.
 

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

Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible to live in their own homes. Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s independence and supporting them with choices. Although one relative said, “[Name] is often reluctant to let the carers do things for her, she wants to be independent, and the carers are not very encouraging.

People’s care plans provided a brief overview of their desired outcomes. Staff consistently supported people to make everyday decisions about meals, clothing, routines and their support requirements.
 

The provider 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.

People’s relatives told us that whilst their concerns about people’s unmet needs were initially acknowledged and addressed by the managers, the agreed actions to improve people’s quality of care had not always been sustained. Some people and relatives raised concerns about the knowledge of staff when supporting people who live with dementia.
 

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

Most staff told us they felt supported and respected by the registered managers. They said the provider promoted an open culture and encouraged teamwork. Staff said they felt the registered managers were approachable and took a genuine interest in them.

The provider celebrated special events with staff and made reasonable adjustments to their working hours as needed. The registered managers described how they had valued staff with small tokens of appreciation and had helped support staff having a positive work-life balance.

Some staff said whilst they did not always have regular supervision, the registered managers and office team were approachable, although their response times and communication quality varied at times.