Spire Homecare 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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

More than 50% of people we spoke to told us they felt care was rushed. Comments included “I feel harassed at times” and “Staff come and you can see they want to leave”.

People told us staff did not always display inclusion and engagement. Comments included “some [staff] stay and chat, others want to get in and out as soon as possible” and “I don’t always feel like I get the detail [of care] that I need. Detail is important to me”.

However, people did tell us that their regular carers “were great”.

Staff we spoke to told us that dignity and respect was essential. They gave examples such as closing doors when supporting people with personal care, and respecting people’s choices including how they wanted to spend their time.

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

Care plans did not always contain information that reflected people’s individual preferences, routines, and personal histories. Staff did not always demonstrate an awareness of the people they supported and were not able to discuss people’s unique likes, dislikes, and life experiences. Comments included “information about people is on the care planning app” and several people told us “I feel the care plans lack individual detail”. However, care records did include functional information on how to support each person.

The Provider evidenced several good news stories which listed individualised support people had received and outcomes that had been achieved as a result of good care and support received from Spire Homecare.

The provider’s office had a memory tree which honoured all people who had sadly passed away. This was a heart-warming way of ensuring people were remembered.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care records contained details of what support people required from staff and what they could do independently. However, staff did not always have an in-depth knowledge of the people they supported. People told us their regular staff were good, but due to the expansion of the company, people frequently received care from carers who did not know them well.

One person experienced a change in their mobility [and decided to move their care to Spire Homecare]. The provider identified this person required more intensive support and worked closely with them to build trust and confidence. Over time, this relationship enabled the person to feel empowered and involved in decisions about their environment. For example, they collaborated with staff to plan and redecorate their home in a way that reflected their personal style and preferences. This demonstrated how personalised care and strong engagement enhanced independence and wellbeing. The person told us “Staff engaging with me in a positive way has contributed to my sense of comfort, identity, and emotional stability”.
 

Staff 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.

More than half of the people we spoke to told us they did not always receive consistent staff and that this meant they were not able to build a relationship with them. People told us timings of visits changed, and they were not informed. Comments included “My visit was for 7am and staff arrived at 11am”, “I feel I am low on the list of priority” and “Staff are sometimes unsure of how to perform tasks”. When asked about the impact of this, People told us this did not help them when planning their days and it caused confusion because they were not sure when or who would be turning up.

We discussed this with the registered manager who informed us working on the visit timings was a priority identified in their improvement plan.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported them to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they received the support they needed to do their job well.

Staff told us the registered manager was open, and they were able to share any concerns they had. Staff said they were confident the registered manager would act on any issues and were invited to meetings to share concerns and best practices. This meant staff were able to celebrate success together which added to a consistent and positive team working approach. Comments included “The provider’s support is great”, “There are well-being coffee mornings” and “Managers thank me for my work”.