Northamptonshire Domiciliary Care Agency

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 changed to 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.

Feedback we received from people and their relatives demonstrated that people were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. People told us, “It’s my home. I like it here. Staff are good to me.”

Relatives spoke positively about the quality of support provided and the relationships people had developed with staff. Comments included, “It suits [relative], I think [relative’s] happy there,” “[Relative’s] provision is absolutely excellent, staff are so kind to [relative] and very welcoming to me,” and, “[Relative] seems happy with staff, says [relative] likes them.” Another relative told us, “It’s [relative’s] home, [relative] loves it there, they’re like family.”

Our observations during the assessment reflected the feedback we received. Staff interacted with people in a warm, caring and compassionate manner and demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences.

We observed positive and respectful interactions throughout the homes and saw staff taking time to engage with people in a way that promoted their wellbeing and comfort.

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 demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and were able to describe people’s individual likes, dislikes, strengths and abilities.

Feedback from staff and our review of records showed people were supported in a way that recognised their individual preferences. Care records contained information about people’s backgrounds, preferences and personal circumstances to help staff provide person-centred support. Staff used this information to tailor support to people’s individual needs and ensure care reflected what was important to them.

We also found evidence that people’s religious needs were considered and assessed. For example, information about a person’s religion and associated needs was recorded within their care plan to help ensure support was delivered in a way that respected their beliefs and preferences.

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.

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives and take part in activities that were important to them.

For example, we saw evidence of people participating in a range of activities based on their interests and preferences, including attending cafés, eating out, shopping, bowling, going for walks and attending day services. Staff also involved people in everyday household tasks, such as cooking, shopping and housework.

Feedback from relatives regarding opportunities for people to access activities and the community was mixed. Some relatives told us people were enjoying increased opportunities, with one relative commenting, “[Relative] has been going out a lot again recently.” However, another relative told us, “They don’t go out like they used to.” This indicated that people's experiences were not always consistent across the services.

During the assessment, we observed examples of people exercising choice and control over their daily lives. However, we remained concerned that some practices were not fully aligned with the principles of the real tenancy test. For example, at one service all people were out whilst a manager was undertaking an audit within the property. At another service, a staff member advised us it was acceptable to remain in a person's home because the person had given permission. These examples demonstrated that further work was required to embed and sustain a culture that consistently recognised and respected people's rights as tenants in their own homes.

Our observations during the assessment showed staff responded promptly and appropriately to people’s immediate needs. Staff were attentive to people and provided support when required, helping to ensure people received timely assistance and reassurance. Interactions we observed demonstrated that staff knew people well and were able to recognise when they required additional support.

Where people required support to manage anxiety or distress, the provider had sought specialist input to help ensure support was tailored to their individual needs. For example, there was evidence of involvement from a specialist practitioner who was supporting the development of functional assessments and bespoke Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) plans. This included providing guidance and training for staff in relation to people’s specific needs and how best to support them.

Although positive work was underway, the development of all required assessments and support plans had not yet been completed. This meant further work was required to ensure all people who would benefit from specialist assessments and PBS plans had fully developed guidance in place to support a consistent approach to meeting their immediate needs.

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

The provider had arrangements in place to support workforce wellbeing and enablement. Staff had access to a range of benefits, including an external employee assistance programme (EAP), which provided additional support and wellbeing resources.

The provider sought feedback from staff through colleague surveys and demonstrated a commitment to responding to this feedback through a ‘You Said, We Did’ approach, helping to ensure staff views were listened to and acted upon.

We found staff had opportunities to discuss their roles and development through regular team meetings, supervision and annual appraisals. These processes helped to support communication, individual performance and staff development. Records showed these arrangements had improved since our last assessment.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from leaders and managers. In particular, staff told us that new line managers had a greater focus on staff wellbeing and were approachable and supportive.