Care Staff Services 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

At this assessment we found the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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.

We received mixed feedback regarding how caring staff were towards people. One person told us, “They could be better (more attentive). They are quite complacent.” A relative told us staff were often heard speaking to each other or on their phones in a language other than English whilst providing care. In contrast, one person told us, “We chat, and joke, just like old friends. They know my routine and are a great support.” One relative told us staff were kind and polite and were able to offer conversation and reassurance in their family member’s preferred language.

Staff were able to describe how they ensured people’s privacy and dignity when supporting them with their personal care. They told us they would ensure people’s curtains were drawn and where appropriate, doors were closed. One staff member told us, “I will cover someone when I wash them, so they are warm but also for their privacy.”

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

People’s care plans did not consistently contain details relating to their life histories, interests, support networks and things which were important to them. This was of particular concern where people lived alone and were at risk of social isolation. The lack of personal details in care records meant staff did not have access to information which may have helped them in establishing relationships, building trust and developing understanding of people’s needs and wishes. Feedback received from a number of relatives confirmed staff lacked insight into their family members’ lives to help ensure the care provided was personalised and trusting relationships were developed. One relative told us, “They’re almost all strangers, polite but don’t engage.” They told us this was despite their relative having received care from the service for a number of years.

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.

We received mixed feedback regarding how staff supported people’s independence. One relative told us, “If by independence you mean leaving [family member] largely fending for [themselves] then yes. Otherwise, it’s not something they consider.” A second relative told us, “At the moment, what they do is all about getting back as much fitness as possible.” They added they had regular discussions with the care team to support this process.

People’s care records did not always contain information to support them in maintaining and promoting their independence. Information regarding what people were able and wished to do for themselves, how they communicated choices or how staff should respond if people refused their care was not always held within people’s care plans.

Staff were able to describe how they offered people day-to-day choices. One staff member told us, “We give them the freedom of what they want. Every person has their own rights in this care company. I ask people which clothes they want to wear, where they want to go for the shopping.” However, staff told us they believed some people had legal restrictions regarding the care they received although this was not the case for anyone being supported by the service. This presented a risk that staff would not ensure people always had the right to express their choices.

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.

People and relatives told us that staff did not always stay for the full time allocated to their call. One person told us, “They’re in and out, do what they have to and then go.” A relative told us, “They seem to virtually ignore [person]. The care team make a token effort in the short time, 15 minutes and they’re gone. The company know all about [person’s] issues but don’t seem to have motivated their staff to support [person].” They told us this meant a number of their family members’ needs in relation to their health conditions were not met.

Records showed that the time staff spent at calls was not always recorded or was completed retrospectively. This meant the provider was not able to effectively monitor if staff stayed for the duration of people’s care calls.

In other instances, relatives told us staff responded positively when people were upset or nervous. One relative told us their relative had been resistant to receiving care, but over time a small team had been able to build a relationship. This meant their relative was now responding positively to the support offered.

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

We received mixed responses from staff regarding how well they felt supported by the provider. Some staff told us they felt there had been improvements under the new manager and whilst things were currently difficult due to the changeover in management, felt things would improve. One staff member told us, “The manager seems better, things were sometimes good and sometimes not before. We have meetings arranged now so are hopeful we will be listened to.” Other staff felt they needed better communication from the management team, particularly regarding how the service was operating pay and support for staff.

The manager acknowledged improvements in the way staff were supported were needed. They told us, “They have not always been treated well, just blamed but not supported. I have told them things will be different. We will be building the service with them and supporting them.”