Joy Caring Services Limited

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 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.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. During our visits, we observed staff encourage people to go to their bedroom when they were uncomfortable and required support. They closed people’s doors when supporting with personal care and asked for consent before lifting their clothing.

The provider 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.

People’s records were not always personalised. We found in the care plans we reviewed the section ‘what is important to me’ were identical for different people.

People had weekly activity planners. These were personalised but did not have much on them. For example, 1 person attended college 5 days per week, there was no information about how they spend their evenings and the weekend referred to a weekend planner with generic options for everyone. Another person had very few options on their planner and included preparing a shopping list and doing the food shop which are daily living tasks rather than activities to support their quality of life. The provider told us 2 people had set routines as this was their preference. The other 2 people made choices on the day.

Staff ensured people had access to information in suitable formats. Care records and activity planners had pictures to support people’s understanding. During our visits, we observed staff communicating to meet people’s needs.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence.

People were not always supported to develop their skills and gain independence. Staff completed people’s housework and laundry with little or no involvement of people. During our visits we observed staff making tea for people and taking it to them rather than encouraging them to do it themselves with support. There was limited involvement of people with cooking and preparing their meals. A staff member at 1 of the schemes said, “They help sometimes, might do some baking or something. Sometimes they might get involved.” At another scheme, staff told us, “Staff do the communal areas. Service users do their rooms with support. Some of the washing up – 1 washes, 1 dries.” Therefore, we were not assured enough effort was made to support people to develop and maintain daily living skills.

Following our feedback, a registered manager told us they had made improvements to this. They said, “From the last visit we have now had activities involving the [people] more asking them what they would like to do and involving them in all the cooking and just last week [person] helped make cottage pie.”

People were supported to participate in activities of their choice. A person said, “We do swimming…I go shopping…and I like doing cooking as well. I like baking.” A relative told us, “Whilst [person’s] choices are respected, they work hard to ensure [person] gets out every day.”

The provider 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.

Staff we spoke with were familiar with people’s needs. They were able to tell us of physical conditions people had and how they were supported with them. For example, a person had emergency medicines and staff told us, “Administer after 5 mins but ambulance must be called as [person] has never had it and in case [they have] a reaction to it.”

The provider had supported a person to change rooms. A relative told us, “[Person] preferred the little room, [they] kept bringing [their] bedding down, they tried to discourage that but [person] liked the walk-in shower so they recognised that – it’s [person’s] choice so they went about putting black out blinds up to make it as comfortable as they could.”

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

The provider gave examples of how they supported staff. Staff confirmed they were happy working at the service and had no concerns. A staff member said, “I love it.”

Staff received regular supervision. We saw issues were addressed if needed but positive feedback was also included.