Pleasant Valley Care Shropshire Branch

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered- amend as required service. This key question has been rated 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.

People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring and supported them with respect. One relative told us, “There's nothing they could do better; they're doing over and above as it is. They will stay over time and they are very caring.”

People told us staff were considerate of their privacy and promoted their dignity. People told us how staff closed doors and curtains when supporting them with personal care.

Staff were empathetic towards people’s needs and considered what they could do to improve people’s emotional wellbeing. Daily logs recorded any concerns regarding people’s mood and reflected the discussions staff had with people to address and improve their emotional wellbeing.

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 individual needs were considered, and people were supported in a way they preferred. Staff took time to understand what was important to people and delivered care in a way that reflected their personal choices and routines. This approach ensured people felt valued and supported in a way that was tailored to them as individuals.

Each person’s care plan was written individually and showed a clear commitment to meeting people’s individual needs and preferences. This was reflected in daily records, which demonstrated staff treated people as individuals.

Where care plans had been completed in full, they considered people's religious needs. One person’s care plan provided detailed guidance for staff regarding how the person wanted to be supported to ensure their faith needs were met.

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

People told us staff encouraged their independence and gave examples of where carers had supported them to do more for themselves. For example, one person told us how carers had supported them to improve their mobility.

People told us staff gave them choice and they were supported to be in control of the way their care was delivered. One relative told us, “They do allow (relative’s name) to make choices and decisions themselves. They always ask what they fancy for dinner.”

Care planning and daily records showed people were supported to exercise choice and maintain control over their lives. Staff encouraged people to make their own decisions and respected these, supporting independence in line with people’s preferences and abilities. Daily records confirmed staff consistently promoted choice and autonomy in day‑to‑day support.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes but was not always able to deliver care in a way that responded to their immediate need. The provider acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress but were restricted at times by their low staffing levels.

People told us staff were not always on time, but they did contact them if they were going to be late. Call scheduling systems were not always effective due to the low number of staff employed by the provider. Where usual staff were not available, the provider made attempts to cover people’s calls but there were not always sufficient staff to provide care. The provider had discussed this with people and relatives prior to the commencement of their care packages and contingency arrangements were in place for relatives to cover which they were happy with.

People and relatives told us the provider was responsive in doing what they could to meet their needs. People and relatives felt supported by staff who helped to minimise any concerns to them and took action where needed to ensure their needs were met. Where people’s needs changed, the provider was proactive in making changes to their care packages to ensure their needs continued to be met.

People provided positive feedback regarding how staff responded to them. One person had commented in their 4 week care review, “Carers listen carefully and respond appropriately". A communication book was placed in the person’s home so any notes or updates could be documented.

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

Staff were not always supported with training opportunities. However, staff were content with the training they had received and felt they were competent to meet people’s needs. Staff felt well supported during their induction periods when they were introduced to people and supported to shadow more experienced staff prior to supporting people on their own.

Staff told us they felt supported by management and could raise concerns openly. Staff were confident the registered manager would address any concerns raised.

Whilst staff did not receive regular supervision, the provider communicated regularly with them and staff felt able to reflect on their work and discuss how they felt with the registered manager. The registered manager was proactive in encouraging staff to deliver person centred care.

Staff told us workloads were manageable and their shifts were arranged around their responsibilities. The provider enabled staff to work flexibly around their childcare and education commitments. However, this meant they did not always have sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs effectively. Whilst the provider was flexible and tried to promote the wishes of staff regarding their working hours, they did not always ensure staff took sufficient time off although this was staff choice.