Kalm Living

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff did not always see people as their equal. Some of the language used by staff in care plans and daily notes were not respectful or empowering. For example, daily notes stated, ‘put back to bed’ and a care plan referred to a person moving around their home at night as ‘messing around’. This did not demonstrate kind, compassionate and dignified care and support.

The provider's systems had failed to identify staff were restricting people’s freedoms, in their own homes. This meant people’s rights and autonomy were restricted unnecessarily.

People said staff were kind and caring.

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.

People were not always treated as individuals with their own aspirations for the future. They were not always encouraged to stretch their own boundaries and break routines and habits.

Care plans contained background information about people to help staff gain an understanding of their needs. Staff were able to talk about people’s needs confidently.

Relatives told us staff knew their family members well. Comments included, “The staff recognise [person’s] individual preferences and work with that. [Person] has to trust people and [person] really does trust the staff”; “The staff are lovely, most have been there for a long time and know [person] very well” and “[Person’s] bedroom is decorated pink, just how they like 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.

Aspects of the supported living settings were more akin to the ethos of a care home. For example, staff answered the front doors when we visited, and staff meetings had been held in people’s lounges, where they were not allowed to enter as the meetings were “private”.

These practices did not support people to develop a sense of ownership for their homes; did not reflect they had the same control over their home as any other citizen and was not in line with guidance laid out in the Reach Standards and The Real Tenancy Test. The Reach Standards are a best practice framework for supported living services. The Real Tenancy Test is a tool designed to assess whether individuals in supported living arrangements have genuine tenancy rights.

People did engage in a variety of daytime activities in the local community. For example, clubs and groups.

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 confirmed staff responded to their needs when they needed support or wanted to discuss something.

Staff were aware of, and mindful to, any sensory or processing difficulties people had. They knew people well and could recognise if a person was worried or unhappy.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff. Staff took time to listen to people and ensure they understood what they were communicating.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported, and valued by the registered manager. They felt the registered manager was approachable and took a genuine interest in them.

Staff commented, “I feel supported in my role. [Registered manager] has supported me to achieve my level 5 qualification. This is a great opportunity” and “It is a supportive place to work, and I am very happy here.”