Alchita Care Limited of Bradford

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 50 (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 evidence how staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion including how staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Feedback from people and their relatives was positive; all agreed they were treated with dignity, and examples included closing doors and using towels to cover people’s private areas when delivering personal care. Comments included, “The carers are very kind and gentle and have a good relationship with all of us in the family” and “Seriously don’t know what I would do without them.” However, care documentation did not record how people were involved in planning and staff did not receive the appropriate training to support people with complex needs.

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 evidence how they take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff were able to tell us about the people they supported and describe how they preferred to be supported. Although care plans were person centred, information was not always up to date, and individual preferences and routines were not consistently recorded.

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. Care plans and daily records did not evidence how people were supported to be independent, which undermines their autonomy and ability to live fulfilling lives. For example, daily logs record the tasks completed without information if the person was supported to be involved, “[Person] shower done.” However, people and their relatives we spoke with expressed they were overall happy with the care provided. Staff could demonstrate how they supported people to be independent. One staff member said, “If a person wants to try to do things for themselves, I try to let them be involved. For example, they might want to wash their own face or arms, so I support them to try themselves.”

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. Relatives told us staff were often not staying for the full length of the visit. One relative said, “[Staff] don’t always stay the full time.” The provider did not monitor the length of call visits or missed calls. Therefore, we could not be assured on staff’s ability to complete people’s care and anticipate their needs.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff; however they did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. The registered manager told us they cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff told us they felt supported; however, staff supervisions lacked detail and did not evidence meaningful supervision. Staff did not receive regular supervision or appraisals. The provider did not have processes in place to support staff. The service did not have any policies to support staff for example an appraisal policy or supervision policy. The provider had sought the feedback of their staff, however not all concerns raised had been actioned.