SeeAbility South Gloucestershire Support Service

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 type of supported living. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed staff interacting with people in a very kind and respectful manner. People appeared comfortable and at ease with their support staff. We observed staff knocking on people’s front door and waiting for permission to enter. People confirmed they knew who would be supporting them in advance. Rotas were displayed in people’s flats.

However, 2 people raised concerns about how a member of staff had recently supported them that did not demonstrate kindness and respect. This was being investigated by the provider. Another person raised concerns that there was not always a female member of staff available to support them when they needed to use the bathroom. This did not promote their dignity and evidently caused them stress and anxiety. The person had raised this with the management of the service but was concerned that this was still happening.

When visiting a person in their flat it was noted there were no curtains in their bedroom. Whilst it was understood that the person did not want curtains, there was no evidence that other options had been explored to ensure this person’s privacy.

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.

Two people told us they were not always able to access the community because there were not enough staff who could drive, which affected their wellbeing. The manager was reviewing the rotas to ensure car drivers were allocated to people that needed this and provided reassurances to the individuals.

People’s care and support was clearly described in their support plans and was tailored to the individual. This enabled the staff to get to know the people they were supporting. A member of staff told us they worked with the same person which enabled them to get to know them well. From conversations with staff, it was evident they knew people well and treated them as individuals.

A member of staff told us, “Yes I do feel confident supporting the person I support. This has been gained through working directly with this person for over 4 years”. They evidently knew the person well, their likes and dislikes. Another member of staff told us, “Safeguarding and person-centred care training has helped me to better understand how to support individual, respect their choices, and keep them safe in different situations”.

The newly appointed manager had made some changes and had introduced a key worker system to enable people to have a dedicated person to support them with making choices. They were also reviewing the rotas to ensure each person had a core team and drivers were available to help people access the community. The manager told us they were over recruiting which would mean less reliance on agency staff. This was still being embedded. A person confirmed they had a recently been allocated a key worker who was a named member of staff.

The provider 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 appeared comfortable and at ease with their support staff. On the day of our inspection, people were being supported to attend their day centres and planned activities such as shopping and lunch out. One person told us they were attending a hospital appointment.

One person told us, they used to go swimming, attended an art therapy group and gym and went on long walks. They could not recollect when they last completed any of these activities and responded with, “When I get better”. Another person told us they use to attend music therapy, and they missed doing this. It was evident the people had enjoyed these activities, but alternatives had not been explored in relation to music or their love of arts or registering with a gym. There appeared a lack of creativity for some people to meet their goals and aspirations.

There was a record in one person’s daily records stating they wanted to go to the city centre. There was no explanation why they could not go into the city centre or what other options had been put to them. Staff had only recorded “wasn't happy because wanted to go to city centre”.

This meant the person was not supported to do what they wanted to do or have control of their day and staff did not demonstrate a person-centred approach to supporting them.

A new key worker system had been introduced to help support people with planning their care and ensuring their individual needs were being met. A member of staff told us, “The team fosters a supportive and inclusive environment where the independence, dignity, and wellbeing of service users are always prioritised”.

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 told us they could alert staff via a call bell from their individual flats if they needed support and the floating member of staff who was not supporting a person would attend.

Some people felt the staff did not respond to their immediate needs on occasions, such as for personal care when they needed it. There was a floating member of staff working in the service daily that could step into support people who did not need 24-hour support. However, if this was not a female member of staff, a person told us they could not always respond and support in a timely manner. This was echoed by another person who said not all staff were medication trained or trained to use the hoist, which meant on occasions they had to wait for support. This meant on occasions people experienced distress and discomfort.

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

Some staff told us the last few years had been difficult with changes of managers, morale had been low, and they did not always feel supported. They did say this had improved with the new manager who was approachable and listened. Whilst it was evident staff felt more supported since the newly appointed manager improvements were still being embedded.

A member of staff told us how the new manager had introduced thoughtful initiatives such as providing basic toiletries, offering snacks and refreshments in the staff room and holding regular staff meetings. In addition, they had started an employee of the month. They said, “This is a wonderful way to motivate the team and encourage everyone to put in their best effort”.

Staff had access to resources that supported their well-being including confidential counselling services if they needed it. Debrief sessions were provided after any incidents or accidents. A member of staff described the importance of the debriefs telling us how it had supported them, and they had found them useful in improving their practice.

A member of staff described to us how they had been supported with adjustments to enable them to continue to work. It was evident they were proud of the work they did and the support that had been shown to them.

Staff confirmed there was an on-call system they could contact for support when the manager or the deputy manager was not available.