Time to Care Specialist Support 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of 1 legal regulation in relation to staffing and workforce wellbeing.

This service scored 50 (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. Due to the concerns identified during the inspection, we could not be assured people received a high quality, compassionate and caring service. There were identified shortfalls in taking action to expand people’s experiences, particularly in relation to health and wellbeing which meant people were not always treated with dignity and respect.

Staff spoke with us about the people they supported with kindness and respect. Relatives told us they were happy with the care their loved one received.

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

The lack of detail in care plans in relation to people’s wishes, needs, and goals meant there had been a lack of collaboration around how to treat people as individuals.

Some care plans required more detail to enable staff to support them in an individualised way. For example, one communication care plan said staff needed to pay attention to body language and gestures to understand the persons emotions. However, there was no specific detail on how the person’s presentation would change if they were in pain or distressed.

Staff were able to speak with us about people’s needs, and relatives were complimentary of the staff. One relative said, “They have chosen the right staff. They have really taken the time to get to know (person) and understand them."

We could not be confident in the provider’s approach to promoting people’s independence to ensure people knew their rights and had choice and control over their care and support.

Concerns had been identified during the assessment in relation to care planning and risk management. The acting manager agreed that care plans needed to be improved and said, “I agree they lack personalised detail.”

Staff understood their role. One staff member said, “Our role is to enable (person) to live their best life. There’s been a massive change since we first started the support, we know them well and there are rarely any incidents now as we are a consistent team."

A relative told us, “The staff do a lot out in the community. They are supporting with desensitisation techniques for medical appointments so it’s less traumatic."

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

Care plans did not always provide staff with the information and support strategies needed to ensure they could appropriately respond to people’s immediate needs.

The staff explained that through a consistent approach they had built trust with people which had resulted in people experiencing less distress and anxiety. One staff member said, “We are so proud of how they have come on."

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Systems and processes were in place to support staff wellbeing; however, they were not used to the best effect. Some staff said they felt demoralised, undervalued and unsupported. One staff member told us, “The management team can be supportive but at other times they aren’t. It’s a very inconsistent approach from the office staff and we do feel undervalued. They never come to meet the team or (person supported).” It was explained that any concerns or feedback from staff should have been put on a tracker and followed up. The nominated individual said, “I don’t think it always happened, but we have new systems in place now so actions are recorded on one sheet and will be followed up."

Staff were complimentary of the senior support worker at one domiciliary care package who they described as “very supportive and always there if needed."