Option Care 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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.

One local authority who commissions care with the provider had identified safeguarding concerns across multiple areas of the service. These records indicated that people had raised concerns that staff had not always respected their privacy and dignity. The provider strongly disputed these concerns and was currently working with the local authority to address and respond.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about whether they believed people were treated respectfully and with kindness. Some people raised concerns in this area, whilst others were positive about the caring nature of staff. One relative said, “The carers are very observant, very caring. They have connected so well with [my relative]. I feel [they are] really safe.”

Staff had received training in relation to privacy and dignity in care. One staff member said, “I communicate respectfully, maintain privacy, follow confidentiality policies and treat people as I would want my own family treated.”

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.

Care plans included information about how to support people in line with their individual needs and preferences. However, we received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about the implementation of personalised care to reflect their individual wishes and preferences.

In contrast, some people provided examples of how the provider had considered their culture and unique background. The provider also shared examples of how they support people based on their culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. One relative said, “Since they have been coming, they have been culture sensitive.” A staff member told us, “There are a lot of information surrounding people's personal, cultural, social and religious needs.”

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 people needed support with and what they could do independently. Staff told us they supported people to be as independent as they could. One staff member said, “Care plan and risk assessment information acts like guidelines that will enable the service provider in discharging person-centred care to service users. It clearly describes the service users' communication needs, personal care requirements and needs, mobility, risks, medication, nutritional needs, dietary needs amongst others.”

We saw one care plan which clearly outlined the measures that staff should put in place to promote independence for the person, whist maintaining support and guidance. This meant the person was able to be as independent as possible with the reassurance that support was available if needed.

The provider 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.

We received mixed feedback from professionals about whether the provider responded in a timely way to changes in people’s immediate care needs. Some professionals raised concerns about the effectiveness and timeliness of the providers communication if someone’s health is deteriorating or they have concerns about the amount of care within the care package not meeting needs. In contrast, some professionals also gave examples about where people’s immediate care needs were being well met. One professional said, “We have reports that some of the carers are skilled and compassionate. We have a client who has just started to receive support from them and one carer in particular has really encouraged [them] to want to get out of bed and show an interest in life again. They have made a real difference to [their] well-being.”

People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about whether they felt staff responded to their needs in a timely manner. One relative told us that staff did not always respond to their relative’s immediate needs. However, another person said, “Yes when they see [there are changes in their health they take action]. They recognise when [there are changes].

Staff told us the provider cared about and promoted their wellbeing. However, the concerns we identified in relation to call time data meant we were not assured they consistently supported or enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Some professionals raised recent concerns about high staff workloads. However, staff told us they felt valued, had opportunities to share their views and felt they were listened to. One staff member said, “There are regular off days. I am treated with respect.”

We reviewed records and saw that the provider had spoken to staff about the importance of supporting their wellbeing and asked them to approach management with any concerns.The provider had an employee wellbeing hotline and had made improvements to their system to ensure training and supervision was carried out at appropriate intervals as per their policy. The provider also told us that many staff had worked for them for approximately three years. Staff who were actively working were receiving training and supervision in accordance with the provider’s policy.