Loving Angels Care (West and North Northamptonshire)

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 remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During this assessment we saw evidence of spot checks conducted with care staff, this was documented in a spot check tracker. These records provided detailed summaries of findings and actions taken.

One relative told us "My relative gets on with most of the carers, some have a good relationship with [Person] and are jolly and will chat, which they like, usually the older carers. The younger carers spend a lot of time during the day on their phones, Facebook, WhatsApp or just messaging and they don’t chat, they just leave my relative to watch the TV, they don’t interact with [Person]. [Person] wants to and enjoys chatting and telling their stories. I know when they are on their phones sometimes, they are filling in the log, but they do a lot of personal stuff too"

Another felt that the carers were gentle and encouraging to her relatives needs and encouraging with independence where possible. When asked if the carers were kind and caring, they said, “they are very gentle” and her relative had said “thank you for being gentle.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans provided information about their pasts, interests and preferences. We observed that care plans were available in people's first language, ensuring accessibility and supporting effective communication. When asking [Person] how the care was for his relative, reply was “these people are lovely” and “talk and chat to him”. Regarding respecting his relative’s dignity, the reply was “absolutely yes” and “most impressed”.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s care records contained details of their preferences, choices, likes and dislikes. This included information such as preferred call times, favourite meals, activities, and hobbies. They included details of people’s ability to carry out tasks for themselves such as personal care, choosing their own clothes and getting dressed and preparing and eating meals and managing self-medication. Staff were able to describe how they promoted people's independence, choice and control of their care. [Person] felt that the carers were gentle and encouraging to her relatives needs and encouraging with independence where possible. When asked if the carers were kind and caring, [Person] said, “they are very gentle” and her relative had said “thank you for being gentle”.

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.

The management team made efforts to match care staff who were able to communicate with people in their first language. Care staff had access to senior staff and managers through an on-call system in case of queries or emergencies. However, one relative told us a carer had refused to call 999, we brought this to the attention of the management team who advised they had already conducted an investigation and implemented measures to prevent a recurrence.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The service had a lone working policy in place, to help support staff when working independently, promoting good practice to support their safety. The staff received regular supervision and support which enabled them to feel confident in their role. However, we received feedback that some staff worked up to 14 days consecutive days. One person told us “Sometimes they work 9 days straight, they still do their job, but I can tell they are tired as they are less chatty, I worry they will leave to work somewhere else, though none of them have said that." We were not assured individuals well-being was adequately considered when planning the rota, we discussed this with the registered manager who assured us they would look into this further.

Most of the staff were employed on the international recruitment sponsorship scheme, whilst they mostly felt supported, they had not been given information where they could get support if any concerns with their sponsorship arouse. We discussed this with the management team who told us they would add this to the staff handbook. Staff told us they would go straight to the home office.