Affinity Trust - South West

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 service 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 ensured people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff. One person told us staff were “Helpful” and confirmed they were happy with the staff that supported them. One professional told us, “I have also witnessed really positive interactions between support workers and [name of person].” One relative told us, “Some staff are worth their weight in gold, they stand out and support [name of person] as they would their own family member.” Other comments from relatives included, “They [staff] are brilliant, can’t fault carers they are superb” and “I have only seen them [staff] treat [name of person] with respect.”

However, 1 person’s records did not always refer to them in a dignified way. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they were working with staff around terminology. This included within daily notes training. They also told us the provider was undertaking an initiative to rehumanise the language used, and training was going to be delivered to staff.

The provider treated people as individuals. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans took account of their culture and needs and protected characteristics. One relative told us how their family member was supported to attend their chosen church. People told us they attended their chosen activities.

However, we received some mixed feedback from people’s relatives. One person’s relative told us, “It’s not user led, it’s organisational led, what fits with them, not residents.” Another relative told us staff, “Go out of the way” to support their family member to attend their chosen activities. A third relative told us their family member was “Definitely” supported to attend their chosen activities, they went on to tell us about all of the activities they attended.

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.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives. One person’s relative told us how their family member had been supported by staff who could trigger their anxiety. The relative commented their family member had, “Gone downhill” and had, “No choice.” We discussed this with the registered manager who confirmed the staff members were no longer working directly with the person. Other comments from relatives included, “[Name of relative] is nonverbal when they communicate, they [staff] pick up on it and support [name of person’s] views” and “They [staff] do communicate with [name of person], they have a tablet and an app, [name of person] makes choices.”

People’s care plans included information about their chosen activities and activity planners were in place. The registered manager gave us examples of where people were supported to maintain their independence and develop skills.

Staff told us they supported people’s independence and enabled them to make choices. One staff member told us they supported 1 person with their independence by promoting them to engage in day-to-day tasks.

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 found examples where people needed professional input, and this had not always been sought in a timely way by staff. This impacted on people’s quality of life.

Although staff knew people and were able to describe their preferences, not all staff were able to describe people’s individual needs or had a good understanding of them.

The provider had systems in place to promote the wellbeing of their staff. However, we received mixed feedback from staff regarding how supported they felt. One staff member told us, “We feel isolated, I haven’t felt the most supported.” Another staff member commented, “I just feel left on our own to be fair, we just get on with it.” Other comments from staff included, “Yes I do [feel supported], I know if I need anything I can go to [name of support manager] or [name of deputy manager] is fantastic” and “I’ve had a good experience and feel valued 100%.”

We received mixed feedback from staff regarding their supervisions. One staff member told us, “I haven’t had supervision as such. If management need me to do something they will email me. I had an annual appraisal to see how I am how I’m enjoying things.” Another staff member told us, “I’ve had my personal development and one to ones [supervision], what I need. They are quite regular.”

The registered manager told us about the organisations employee assistance programme which provides support for staff. Staff were aware of this service. One staff member told us about a ‘Webinar for wellbeing’ that was being held for staff, covering self-care, mental health and wellbeing.

The registered manager gave examples of staff being nominated for internal awards for going above and beyond within their role.