Luton Alliance Clinical and 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

We rated caring as good. We assessed 5 quality statements. People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff understood the individual needs of service users and supported them to understand and manage their care and treatment. Staff involved service users in risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. However, two care records were missing within care records and service users were not routinely offered a copy of their care plan.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Service users told us staff were kind and treated them with care and compassion. All service users we spoke with confirmed they had one regular keyworker and felt they had a good relationship with their keyworker. One service user told us that several family members had also been supported by the service and that information about them was treated confidentially and only shared with their consent.

Staff saw service users in interview rooms, ensuring care promoted dignity, respect, privacy and confidentiality.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and comprehensive assessments meant that staff had access to information about people’s personal history, backgrounds and goals.

During our inspection, we observed staff and service users having positive relationships and interactions. Staff treated service users with kindness and compassion.

The service was friendly, inviting and well decorated in a way to suit service user’s needs.

Service users we spoke with said they were treated as individuals and that staff understood them and provided care and treatment that suited their individual needs and preferences.

Service users told us that staff were considerate of their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff understood and respected service user’s individual needs. Staff treated people as individuals, considering relevant protected equality characteristics. Staff assessed people's personal, cultural, social and religious needs where possible to ensure these were met.

Staff met service users’ communication needs. For example, the service had a staff member who spoke multiple languages and was engaging with service users in the community.

Care records we reviewed were person-centred and were tailored towards people’s individual needs and preferences.

Service users told us they felt supported to have choice and control over their own treatment pathway.

Service users could feedback on their care by using feedback forms which were on display around the service. Service users could also feedback to the service via text message, phone call, e-form or in person. We reviewed compliments and complaints received by the service in the 12 months leading up to the inspection, there were 15 complaints, all complaints were responded to within the providers timescales. In the same 12 months the service received 81 compliments.

Family support was available in the service. The service had a family, friends and carer service which provided information, advice and support. The service could also offer structured 1-2-1 sessions and referrals to partner agencies.

Staff supported service users to engage in developing support networks both at the service and within the local community, this included workshops and groups run by CGL staff and referrals to external services supported them to access those services if they needed help.

Care plans included details of people’s day-to-day needs and preferences, wants and wishes, information included details about people’s hobbies, interests and important relationships.

Service users told us staff responded quickly to emergencies. However, one service user said they had a delay of 5 hours waiting for their prescription.

Staff knew the service users they held on their caseloads; they knew how to recognise people’s needs and knew how to respond in the most appropriate way.

We observed staff responding to service users who needed support in a calm and timely manner.

Information of concern was responded to quickly. We reviewed responses to complaints and found that they were investigated thoroughly. Staff recognised when people needed urgent help or support and responded quickly to their needs, seeking advice where required.

Staff felt valued and treated in a way which supported their own well-being, all staff had access to a well-being hour, where they could take an hour off work weekly for their own wellbeing.

Staff told us that although they were busy, their workload was manageable, and they enjoyed their roles.

Staff told us they felt safe and were supported to stay safe at work. The provider had a lone working and home visits policy and procedure in place to protect staff.

Staff felt they were supported if they were struggling at work, this included having developed a service wellbeing charter with monthly wellbeing groups for staff, and additional supervision for staff who worked in challenging roles.