Archived: Engage Care Services - Main Office Also known as Engage Care Services Limited

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

Engage Care Services now only supported 1 person. Therefore, it was not possible to assess all areas as there was only 1 care plan to review and 1 staff team to speak with. We were unable to compare how the provider may support people’s independence and individual needs, including cultural needs, due to only 1 person being supported.

The person said staff supported them with respect and maintained their dignity and privacy. However, the language used in the daily notes and a support routine document was not always dignified. Staff supported the person to take part in activities of their choice.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The person said, “I would say the staff are kind and treat me respectfully.” They said they were able to ask the staff for time on their own if they wanted it.

We saw the language in the person’s daily routines and a few daily logs was not dignified. This was a continuing issue from our last inspection.

Staff explained how they supported the person to maintain their dignity during personal care. They also said the person sometimes wanted time on their own to make calls. The staff would do this and make regular checks to ensure the person was okay and ask if they needed anything.

Partners had no specific feedback in this area.

The person said the staff team were from the same culture as them and so ‘they get me’. This meant they received the cultural support, for example with their diet and hairstyling, they wanted.

However, the service only supported 1 person. Therefore, we could not judge if improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to treating people as individuals.

The service only supported 1 person. Therefore, we could not judge if improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to treating people as individuals.

The person’s individual needs were known. However, the service only supported 1 person. Therefore, we could not judge if improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to treating people as individuals.

The person said they were able to make decisions about their care and support.

Staff explained how they prompted and encouraged the person to complete things for themselves where possible.

The care plan identified areas where the person was independent and could complete things for themselves.

However, the service only supported 1 person. Therefore, we could not judge if improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to supporting people’s independence and whether they would have choices about their care.

The person said staff responded if they used their buzzer when they needed support.

The person had 2 staff available to support them at all times. They had a buzzer to alert staff if they needed anything and staff made regular welfare checks throughout the day and night.

Staff said they felt supported by the service and there was always someone they could speak with if needed.

Partners told us the registered manager was not initially cooperating with a new provider to ensure a smooth transition of care. This was subsequently resolved but risked the care staff being able to transfer to the new provider.