A & T (Salisbury) 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 75 (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 confirmed this and said, “They are like one of the family”, “I couldn’t have better carers. They are so good” and “They are lovely with [family member] and [she/he] loves them.” One relative told us they had observed staff hug their family member and talk to them so nicely. They said it was lovely for them to see.

Staff spoke with confidence about promoting people’s rights. One staff member told us “You have to remember you’re going into their environment. I always treat people how I would like my family to be treated, how I would like to be treated.” Leaders told us they were passionate about providing a good service and kindness, compassion and dignity were an integral part of this.

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 consistency with their support and positive relationships and individualised support had been established as a result. One person told us “The staff are spot on.” Relatives confirmed this. One relative told us “They have a very tailored care package for an individual.”

Leaders were able to talk to us in detail about people’s needs, preferences and personalities. They said they adapted their approaches accordingly and in response to how people presented that day. However, care planning did not reflect this knowledge. Care records lacked detail and did not reflect people’s individuality, strengths or abilities. Leaders acknowledged this but said they held this information in their head, due to supporting people on a day-to-day basis. Leaders said they would address this and improve the records held.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People told us their independence was promoted, and they could make decisions about their support. They said their support was regularly discussed and they could make changes at any time.

Relatives told us leaders offered as much choice as possible and encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves. Leaders agreed with this and said they always enabled people to direct their support by asking them what they wanted them to do.

Staff gave us various examples of how they promoted people’s choice and independence. This included asking people what they would like to wear and options of what to eat. Staff said they ensured they completed exactly what each person wanted and in a way that met their preferences.

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 were positive about the service they received. One person said it enabled them to stay in their own home. Other people told us they were grateful for the support and enjoyed the company of staff. One staff member confirmed this by saying, “People say, “Where would we be without you girls?”” Relatives also confirmed the service enabled people to stay in their own homes longer. One relative told us, “[The service] has a massive impact. There are not different [staff] coming in and out.

Leaders told us they always aimed to be on time so people could be assured of reliability. This minimised the risk of any anxiety or delay in their care needs being met.

Leaders told us they listened to any concerns and would immediately amend the person’s support as needed. However, leaders confirmed such discussions, and any amendments made were not always documented in the person’s care records. This did not enable patterns or trends to be identified or enable concerns to be used to improve the wider service. Leaders said they were aware of the need to improve record keeping and would address this.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Leaders undertook each person’s support on a day-to-day basis and there was a small reliance on a team of established bank staff. Leaders told us these staff were very valued and received regular updates about the service and people’s needs to keep them in touch with what was going on.

Leaders told us staff received formal supervision when available but could always call if they had any concerns. They also had a yearly appraisal although records of such systems were minimal. The staff had access to people’s care plans and were given an additional break down of care interventions before providing any support.