Active Support Service Ltd

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 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.

People and their relatives described staff as kind, caring and attentive. They told us staff took time to build positive relationships and supported people in ways that respected their dignity and individuality. One relative told us staff communicated effectively by engaging with the person at a level they could understand, which helped them feel comfortable and involved in their care. They told us, “[staff member] really gets on [person’s] level and they are like brother and sister.”

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.

Staff knew people well and were able to describe individuals’ needs, routines and preferences. People and their relatives told us they felt staff understood what was important to them and provided care in a way that reflected their wishes. These positive relationships helped ensure people felt recognised as individuals in day-to-day practice. One relative told us, “[person] has a really good quality of life as the [staff] support [person] to have a really active social life.”

However, the documentation did not always support this. Care plans would benefit from more detailed and personalised information to ensure all staff, including those new to the service, had the guidance they needed to provide fully individualised care. Some people’s communication needs had not been accommodated through accessible formats or adapted documentation, meaning important information was not always presented in a way that people could understand. These gaps reduced the provider’s ability to evidence that people consistently received care tailored to their unique needs and preferences.

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

Staff supported people to make their own day-to-day decisions in practice, and people were encouraged to choose activities they wished to take part in. People and their relatives told us that staff promoted independence and involved individuals in discussions about how they wanted to be supported. Staff and managers demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and described how they considered people’s ability to make decisions and sought their views wherever possible. One relative said, “[staff know if [person] is not in the mood. If [person] is resistant to care they will put music on and dance with them. [Staff] do whatever he wants to do.”

However, the documentation did not fully evidence this good practice. Records did not consistently show that decision specific capacity assessments had been carried out when there was reason to believe a person may lack capacity for certain decisions. Care plans and associated documents did not always demonstrate that decisions were made in line with the MCA’s legal framework. This meant the provider could not reliably demonstrate that people’s rights were consistently upheld or that decisions were made in the least restrictive way.

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. They were able to recognise when people might be becoming unwell, including through changes in body language, behaviour, and other subtle indicators that individuals were distressed or needed support. Staff described how they monitored these early signs and responded quickly to minimise any discomfort or concern.

People and their relatives told us they felt staff were attentive and reacted promptly when needs changed. Staff spoke confidently about each person’s typical presentation and how they identified and responded to signs that someone required additional help. This close awareness of people’s individual communication styles meant staff could act in the moment to provide reassurance, comfort or medical support when required.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. The service had a very stable staff team, which indicated that staff were happy in their roles and felt positive about working for the provider. One staff member said, “It’s such a lovely company… I can’t praise them enough.” Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team and described leaders as approachable and responsive when they needed guidance. They said they were able to raise concerns or ask for help without hesitation, and felt their wellbeing was valued.

The consistency of the staff team helped promote continuity of care for people and contributed to a positive workplace culture. Staff reported that they received regular supervision and felt their training and development needs were recognised.