Blue Sapphire Care 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect by staff who understood the importance of maintaining their privacy and dignity. Feedback from people using the service was consistently positive. People told us staff were friendly, caring and respectful in their approach and that their privacy and dignity were maintained at all times. One person said, "They are first rate and everyone is kind and they can't do enough for you." Another person told us, "Very happy with support, they could not do more for me."

The provider had systems in place to gather and respond to feedback. A compliments and complaints log was maintained, which recorded feedback received, actions taken in response, and any learning shared with staff. This helped the provider monitor the quality of care and recognise good practice, while addressing any concerns raised. People told us they knew who they could contact if they had any concerns. One person said, "No concerns or complaints regarding Blue Sapphire but know how to raise any concerns if required."

These findings demonstrated people were supported by caring staff who treated them with dignity and respect, and that the provider valued feedback to help drive continuous improvement.

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.

People received care that was personalised and reflected their individual needs, preferences and wishes. Care plans were mostly person-centred and contained information about people's backgrounds, life histories and the things that were important to them. This helped staff understand people as individuals and provide care that reflected their personal circumstances. One relative told us, "They stay and chat with her and she's formed really close relationships with the regular carers."

Records included information about people's choices and preferences, such as how they wished to receive support and their preferred routines. This enabled staff to deliver care in a way that respected people's individuality and promoted their independence. One relative told us the service provided them with peace of mind and said staff had developed positive relationships with their family member. Another relative said, "They're all very good, we know them all."

These findings demonstrated the provider had taken steps to ensure care was tailored to the individual, supporting people to receive care that reflected their preferences, choices and personal histories.

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.

Capacity assessments had not always been completed where required. Where best interest decisions had been made, these did not always involve the person and relevant professionals involved in their care and support. In one example, a best interest decision had been made solely with the involvement of the person's next of kin. This meant that other relevant individuals were not given the opportunity to contribute to the decision-making process. Records of the meeting did not demonstrate that alternative options had been considered or that a balanced assessment had been undertaken to determine the least restrictive option in the person's best interests. As a result, the provider could not be assured that decisions were being made in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Leaders had not ensured effective oversight of how people's independence, choice and control were consistently promoted across the service. This meant the provider could not always be assured people were being supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives in line with their preferences and aspirations.

However, care records reflected people's wishes and preferences and provided staff with guidance on how to support them to maintain and develop their independence. Staff understood the importance of empowering people to make their own decisions and described a person-centred approach to care. One member of staff told us, “We involve them as much as possible with their care so they can maintain as much of their independence as possible.”

We also saw examples of people being supported to exercise choice and control. For example, one person was supported to access the community and had the opportunity each week to decide how they wanted to spend their time and which activities they wished to take part in.

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 received support when they needed it. Staff knew people well and responded promptly to requests for assistance, reassurance and comfort during planned visits. They recognised changes in people's wellbeing and took appropriate action to minimise distress and ensure people received timely support.

Feedback from people and their relatives’ indicated staff were responsive to their immediate needs and adapted the support provided when circumstances changed. Comments included, "I would recommend them because they are very good" and "We've been very satisfied."

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

Staff told us they felt well supported by managers and colleagues. Regular supervision meetings gave staff opportunities to discuss their wellbeing, raise concerns and identify any additional support they required.

Feedback from staff was positive, with many telling us they felt listened to and valued. The provider promoted a positive and inclusive culture. Regular team meetings provided opportunities for staff to contribute to discussions, raise concerns and suggest improvements.