Aim24 Care Wokingham

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. People we spoke with told us, they felt staff were kind and treated them with dignity, and their privacy was respected. Comments from relatives about staff included“[staff]looks after[person]very well” and “They are helpful.”

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured their care, support and treatment reflected their personal needs, preferences and choices. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, and their unique backgrounds and protected characteristics when planning and delivering care.

People’s care plans included information about what individuals could do independently and where they required support from staff. This helped ensure care was proportionate and promoted autonomy. Staff supported people to maintain as much independence as possible and to continue living in their own homes safely and comfortably.

The personalised information available helped staff understand what mattered to people and how best to support them in ways that respected their identity, preferences and routines. Staff used this knowledge to build positive relationships and provide care that was meaningful and individual to each person.

The provider promoted people’s independence and supported them to have choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff understood the importance of encouraging people to do as much as they could for themselves, and they supported individuals to complete daily tasks and activities independently whenever possible. People were supported to maintain independence according to their abilities and preferences.

We received mixed feedback from people. Some individuals told us that, in the past, there had been frequent changes in staff, which affected continuity of care. However, people said this had improved recently, and they appreciated now having consistent staff who knew them well and, where applicable, spoke their preferred language. This consistency helped people feel more confident and in control of their daily routines.

Care plans included clear details about how people wished their tasks and support to be completed. This information enabled staff to provide care in ways that reflected each person’s preferences, ensuring people remained central to decisions about how their care was delivered.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and took prompt action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff were aware of the steps they should take to address changes or emerging risks, including how to escalate concerns. Staff told us they knew what actions were required in an emergency. One member of staff said, “I would report any concerns directly to the manager and, depending on the severity, I would also contact emergency services.” This demonstrated that staff were confident in recognising when additional support was needed and how to act quickly.

Where people required intervention or assessment from health or social care professionals due to changes in their health, the provider acted promptly to seek the appropriate support. This ensured people received timely care and helped prevent their health needs from worsening.

The provider’s approach to staff wellbeing and support was mixed. While there were examples of leaders promoting a supportive culture, this was not experienced consistently across the workforce. Some staff told us they felt supported and able to approach managers, and meeting records showed occasions where leaders encouraged feedback and open discussion.

However, some staff reported concerns about wellbeing and the level of support they received. A number of staff had recently left the organisation, and some remaining staff told us they did not always feel comfortable raising issues with leaders. Meeting minutes showed staff experiencing stress, including stress linked to reduced working hours, were advised to speak with management; however, there were no formal wellbeing systems, structured support mechanisms or alternative routes available to staff who did not feel able to raise concerns directly. Regular team meetings were held, but feedback from staff was divided about whether these forums provided a safe and supportive space to raise concerns. The variation in staff experiences indicates that the provider did not always ensure all staff felt valued, supported, and enabled to carry out their roles confidently and provide person centred care.