Adrian O'Brien Rachel Amiee O'Brien - 122 Scorer Street

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

At this assessment we did not assess all quality statements within this key question. We assessed 1 quality statement in the caring key question. People were supported to access the community and maintain relationships with friends and family. However, people were often impacted by other people’s choices due to staff not having the skills and confidence to individually support a person out of the home.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

A person told us they were able to occasionally get out and about, but they would like to do it more. They explained there was enough for them to do, and they were happy with the support they received. Despite the feedback from people, we found that lack of staff was impacting on whether people could leave the home. Relatives felt the service enabled them to maintain a relationship with their family member and were grateful for their support in facilitating visits to the family home.

Staff told us how they supported people to do the things they enjoyed like visiting the library and going to watch a film at the cinema. Staff explained how they supported people’s routines and enabled them to regularly access the community to achieve this. Despite what staff told us, we found people’s experiences were not always equal due to staff not having the confidence to support a person because of potential risks. This meant another staff member was needed for them to leave the home, which impacted on the other person who used the service. Staff were positive about how they promoted people’s independence, for example, ensuring people took the lead at their health appointments and only helping when they required it. Staff told us how people used social media or had access to a phone to keep in contact with their friends and family.

We observed that not all people’s experiences were the same. Although, a person was accessing the community regularly, another person was not able to as much due to identified risks. During the assessment, we observed how 1 person’s choices were sometimes impacting on the other person who used the service due to staffing. Although these concerns had been identified, the provider had not taken effective actions to reduce the impact on people who used the service to enable them to remain in control of what they wanted to do.

Care plans did not always contain information on how to ensure staff supported and encouraged people to be independent. Although the provider was seeking support from external professionals, staffing did not enable people to always remain in control or choose what they wanted to do because staff lacked the confidence and skills to support all the people who used the service. We were told there were no restrictions with visitors and the home was encouraging and welcoming to anyone who wanted to visit their friend or family member.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.