Availl (Norwich)

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 remained the same. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (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 consistently told us staff were kind, caring and respectful. Feedback was extremely positive, with a person saying, “They are fantastic, very kind and caring, and they always accommodate my needs.” A relative said, “They really support not only [person], but me as well. I cannot fault them.”

Care plans included clear guidance on maintaining dignity, such as keeping people covered during personal care, explaining each step, and working at the person’s preferred pace. Staff spoke warmly about the people they supported and demonstrated a caring approach.

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.

Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals. Care plans captured detailed personal preferences, routines and what mattered to each person. For example, one plan described how a person preferred their hair brushed a certain way and enjoyed singing at night to feel calm. Another explained how someone used a particular teaspoon for all meals, and carers followed this.

People and relatives told us staff respected their individuality. One person said, “They really look after me, they are very kind and respectful.” Staff used personalised communication approaches, including working closely with family where people were unable to express needs verbally.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives. Those with capacity were asked what help they wanted at each visit, what they wished to wear, and how they preferred personal care to be delivered. One person told us, “They always ask me what help I need each day.”

Care plans promoted independence. Staff encouraged safe mobility, supported people to do as much as possible for themselves, and adapted care to each person’s pace. Relative feedback confirmed staff involved people in decisions and respected their autonomy. Where people lacked capacity, staff still involved them in day‑to‑day choices using familiar cues and reassurance.

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.

People told us staff responded promptly and consistently to their needs. They said carers were reliable, arrived on time and were attentive during visits. Staff checked people’s comfort, explained what they were doing and made adjustments where needed.

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

Staff told us they felt valued and supported. They described management as approachable, caring and available. One staff member said, “They make me feel like they care about me as a staff member, not just the service I provide.” Another said, “Management couldn’t be any better; I’m happy and proud to work here.”

Staff received regular supervision, felt confident raising concerns and said training was taken seriously. They told us rotas were planned fairly and took account of their availability.

A positive workforce culture contributed to the caring approach seen in the service. Staff morale was good.