Archived: Living Glory Social Care

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.

The service was in continued breach of legal regulations in relation to dignity and respect.

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. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Audits and checks were not robust and did not enable the provider to identify or address the ongoing concerns we found during this assessment. Systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people including risks associated with the call monitoring, medicines management and support planning were still not consistently robust. This did not demonstrate the provider adopted a caring and dignified approach.

Support plans lacked detail in relation to personal histories, preferences and what to do in certain scenarios.

Relatives told us the regular staff knew their loved ones well and knew their likes and dislikes. One person told us, “I like [staff] they know me well now, they listen to me when I’m talking and are very nice to me.”

All staff had received training in dignity and respect.

Most people and their relatives told us they felt staff were kind and compassionate and treated them with dignity.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make 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.

The provider had failed to ensure all people's support plans were personalised to reflect their individual care needs and preferences for how their care was delivered.

When carrying out reviews of care, the provider did not ensure they had considered people’s individual needs and preferences in how their care should be delivered. Where changes were identified, or requested, the provider did not always ensure reasonable measures were in place to ensure these changes were made.

Feedback from people and relatives on the extent to which they were treated as individuals was positive overall.One relative told us, “[Person] can be very particular about how they like things to be done. [Staff] understands this and spends more time making sure everything is done as [Person] likes it.”

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.

Staff had received training on promoting independence, and staff we spoke with could explain how they supported and encouraged people to maintain independence. However, the scheduling of people’s care calls, which were sometimes overlapping, and evidence staff were not consistently staying with them for the agreed duration of calls, did not support the promotion of people’s choice and independence.

Most people and relatives we spoke with told us they felt they were encouraged to maintain independence and were given choices. People we spoke with told us they felt able to make their own choices and decisions and that staff members respected these.

One relative told us, “[Staff] supports [person] to be as independent as they can be.”

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The provider failed to operate a robust system to ensure staff carried out calls to people as scheduled and as needed to maintain their safety and well-being.

One person told us they had received no personal care for over 24 hours and was unable to speak to the office to make them aware, as there was no answer on the telephone. Due to this person’s lack of mobility, this resulted in them not receiving any personal care, continence care resulting in them experiencing discomfort. The provider initially told us they were not aware of this incident but later confirmed they were aware of this, but it had not been recorded.

We saw evidence that when people’s health deteriorated, staff reported this to the office, and this was escalated to the appropriate health professionals. However, we found for 1 service user this had not been the case. They had developed a pressure sore which staff had failed to report, leading to them being hospitalised.

Most people and relatives told us staff knew them well and responded to their general needs and wishes. Overall relatives told us staff recognised triggers which may cause distressed responses prior to them occurring and de-escalated the situation appropriately. However, records needed to be improved as they did not clearly demonstrate this was the case. One relative told us they felt staff needed more training in 1 person’s health conditions as some staff lacked understanding.

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.

Staff rotas we looked at did not demonstrate care calls were scheduled to allow staff enough time to arrive at each call on time. Some calls were allocated to start at the same time, or part way through another visit’s allocation.

Staff meetings and supervisions took place; however, these were not carried out regularly, not all staff members were included and, according to records provided, these were irregular.

The manager told us they had sought feedback from staff members; however, limited records had been maintained in relation to the staff feedback received, including during one-to-one supervision meetings, and no associated action plan had been developed to drive improvements.

Most staff told us they felt listened to by the manager and they felt they could raise any concerns they had.