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 2 legal regulations in relation to person centred care and staffing.

This service scored 45 (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. People had mixed views about the staff. On the whole people told us they were not happy with agency staff and felt they were not always treated with kindness and respect. Some people said permanent staff, who they knew, were kind and supportive, whilst others felt they were not getting the support they needed and felt isolated and unsupported.

Due to the concerns identified during the assessment we could not be assured that people received high quality compassionate care.

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 planning around how to treat people as individuals. The limited induction at 1 independent supported living service meant agency staff, and those staff new to the service did not understand people’s needs and preferences. A relative said, “There is a big turnover of staff, and they aren’t very proactive or engaging.” Permanent staff knew people better but were working alongside multiple agency staff. The staffing situation and the lack of robust support strategies negatively impacted the delivery of individualised care.

One relative was very complimentary of their loves one’s care and said, “Staff know them well. The care and support have been tailored to their needs.

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.

Some people had complex needs. Staff did not fully understand their needs and the lack of robust support strategies within care plans meant people were often left feeling isolated with no meaningful engagement. One person said, “Staff don’t understand my needs, it’s difficult with the language barrier (with agency staff) as well as they don’t understand so I rarely get to go out.”

Staff had requested additional training to help them understand people’s needs, but this had not been provided.

Some people were supported to maintain their independence and have control over their lives.

One person said, “I am very happy here. Things have improved since November, and staff are more available to take me out. They try to be flexible to meet my needs.”

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.

Due to the staffing situation at 1 complex and the lack of induction and detail in care plans staff were not always able to meet people’s immediate needs.

An activity planner was in place which was used to show people’s individual staff hours. However, the provision of hours was not monitored so we could not be sure people received the support hours they needed to meet their needs.

One person told us, “Some staff are okay at delivering the basics, but they don’t go beyond this.”

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not 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, “(Nominated individual) is quick to put staff and their ideas down. They are negative towards staff and our concerns.” Another staff member said, “I raised concerns in my supervision about the way I’ve been spoken to by management, and nothing ever happens.”

Some welfare calls and some debriefs took place. However, they were not used to assess and analyse incidents for triggers. Staff were not supported to reflect on incidents and minimise the risk of future occurrences. One staff member said, “There has never been a debrief for any incidents no matter the severity.”