Care & Grace

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

People reported that staff treated them with kindness and were respectful towards them. People, relatives and advocates spoke highly of the provider and their caring nature. Staff were aware of what was important in people’s lives, including supporting people to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. Staff felt supported in their role and were complimentary of the provider. They felt well trained and able to raise any concerns with the provider in the safe knowledge they would be listened to and action taken. However, staff rotas were unclear and demonstrated that staff had not be provided with travel time between some calls and, on occasion, were expected to be in 2 or 3 places at once.

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.

A relative told us, “They are such a caring company” and described an incident where staff had protected their loved one’s dignity. They went on to say, “[Person] has some capacity and they [care staff] treat them with respect.” Another relative said in relation to the provider, “They are kind and caring; they care a great deal about the people in their care. We can contact them at any time and they always respond quickly.”

Staff spoke kindly and respectfully of people when describing how they supported them. They told us the provider was fully involved in introducing them to people, prior to them supporting them with their care. Staff advised there were enough staff to meet people’s needs but also added that the provider was always on hand to step in and offer support if there were any staffing issues. A member of staff told us they had a personal emergency to deal with whilst at work and the provider had immediately responded to ensure continuity of care and enabled the member of staff to leave the call.

We did not receive any feedback from partners under this quality statement. Therefore this has been given a score of 3.

People, their loved ones and advocates reported staff understood and respected their needs and preferences, including people’s personal and social needs. Staff understood people’s need to maintain connections with family members where possible and supported people to do that. Relatives and advocates spoken with confirmed they spoke with care staff and the provider on the regular basis regarding their loved one’s care and support.

A member of staff described in detail, what was important in the life the people they were supporting.

The majority of staff spoken with were able to tell us about the people they cared for and describe how they preferred to be supported. However, important information about individual people’s care preferences, which staff referred to, was not sufficiently reflected in people’s care records. For example, a member of staff described how a person required some support at mealtimes, but this was not documented in the person’s care plan. This meant there was a risk of people receiving inconsistent care as not all staff had access to written information regarding people’s preferences which would help them understand what was important to them. There was no evidence of formal reviews of people’s care that would ensure their care records were accurate and up to date.

People told us, where appropriate, they were supported to maintain their independence and had control over their lives. They also confirmed staff respected their choices and supported them to access the community and take part in activities that were of interest to them.

Staff were aware of people’s personal relationships and regularly kept in touch with family members and advocates with the authorisation of the people using the service. The provider was in regular contact with people’s loved ones and advocates.

Care records seen were not robust and failed to provide staff with person centred information which would further assist them in supporting people to maintain choice and control over their lives.

A relative described how staff had responded to their loved one’s distress in a way that positively helped them become calmer. They told us, “[Carer’s name] is so patient. They helped [person] get dressed and spoke to them for an hour and a half before they fell back asleep.” They described how, on another occasion, the provider had recognised their loved one was physically unwell and had arranged for them to have a medical test and to see their GP without delay.

From our conversations with staff, it was evident the majority of them were aware of people’s daily care needs and responded to those needs. However, there was a lack of documented evidence to demonstrate people’s wishes were taken into account when developing their care plans. This meant staff there was the potential for staff not fully supporting people in line with their wishes and needs.

All staff spoken with spoke highly of the provider and told us they felt very supported. One member of staff told us, “[Provider’s name] is lovely, and I feel supported, I am happy to raise concerns with them.” Another said, “The manager is approachable, and I am happy in my job.” Staff confirmed the provider observed their practice on a regular basis. We found that staff were not always provided with the information required to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were missing and although staff knew people well, they were not aware of the risks to people from their health conditions and in some circumstances, what actions to take if a person became distressed and unwell.

A staff supervision matrix was in place which highlighted staff had received one supervision session with the provider in August this year. There was no evidence of previous staff supervision sessions taking place. Staff rotas demonstrated on a number of occasions that staff were not provided with travel time between calls, which were several miles apart. Further, rotas demonstrated that on a number of occasions a member of staff was expected to be in 2 or 3 places at the same time. We were told regular staff meetings were taking place on a weekly basis but there was no written evidence of these meetings and what was discussed.