In Home Care Chichester

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 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. We received consistently positive feedback from people about the way staff treated them. People were very happy with the care provided and felt staff carried out their roles with kindness, attentiveness and care.

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured care, support and treatment reflected their specific needs and preferences. Care plans detailed what people could do independently and how staff should support them to maintain their skills and independence, including with personal care, mobility, and daily living tasks.

Feedback from relatives was positive. They told us the staff were friendly and understood their loved ones’ needs, abilities and preferences. This demonstrated staff provided personalised care in a respectful and supportive manner.

The provider promoted people’s independence and ensured they understood their rights, including having choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing. This included respecting people’s decisions where they chose not to engage with health and social care professionals or declined advice and treatment. People told us they were able to cancel appointments and that care could be arranged flexibly when their circumstances changed. This demonstrated the service supported people to remain in control of how and when their care was delivered.

Staff told us they were mindful that they were working in people’s own homes and respected how people chose to live their lives. They described respecting people’s decisions, personal circumstances, home environments, and belongings, which supported a person-centred approach to care.

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. Staff were knowledgeable about the support each person needed to achieve good health and knew the signs to indicate a person’s health may be deteriorating. Relatives told us staff reported changes in their loved one’s health promptly and made referrals for professional healthcare advice and support when needed.

The provider did not always ensure staff felt supported, valued or treated fairly. We received mixed feedback from staff about their experiences of working for the provider. While some staff described it as a good place to work with supportive systems in place, others told us they did not feel the provider consistently promoted or prioritised their wellbeing.

Some staff reported that risks relating to their wellbeing and safety had not always been appropriately considered or managed. They described occasions where they felt unsupported and said this had negatively impacted their wellbeing. Some staff told us they did not always feel treated fairly or with integrity, which reduced their confidence in raising concerns. Staff said they had not felt able to approach the provider or registered manager about their experiences in case this impacted their employment status.

However, other staff spoke positively about the support available to them. They told us there were opportunities for flexible working to promote a healthy work–life balance, and examples were provided of adjustments made to accommodate personal circumstances. Staff told us the office manager was supportive and considerate of their wellbeing.

All staff we spoke with said they had access to good training opportunities which prepared them well for their roles. This included overseas workers, who told us the training had supported their understanding of the culture and expectations of providing care in England. Processes were in place to support staff development, including a supervision policy centred on open dialogue between staff and their supervisors, and a staff recognition programme to reward positive performance.