74 Old Ford End

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always well-supported. The service was in breach of regulation in relation to person-centred care. People did not always receive consistent support that enabled them to pursue their interests and met their needs and preferences.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always meet people's well-being needs, and we found people did not always receive consistent support to take part in activities. However, we observed that staff spoke to people kindly and respectfully and provided people with reassurance and comfort wherever needed. We observed that staff knocked on people's bedroom doors and sought permission before entering. A relative said, "The staff are lovely, and [person] trusts them."

The service treated people as individuals and took account of people’s abilities, and culture. Care plans contained information about people’s spiritual and cultural beliefs. For example, 1 person received regular support to attend church. At the time of our assessment, people had taken part in decorating the home with Halloween decorations and had been supported to start doing their Christmas shopping. People’s preferences were considered regarding the gender of staff that supported them with personal care. People could see their relatives without restriction and were supported to keep in contact with them. People and relatives had decorated the house with pictures and flower hanging baskets.

The service did not always support people’s independence, choice and control. Care plans did not always ensure people’s activities were purposeful and meaningful. For example, for a person who took part in sensory activities daily, there were no care plans to guide the support and interaction they needed with this. This increased the risk of their sensory needs not being met. Another person's care plan stated they would be happy to go shopping daily, and staff had documented they could become upset when they do not get to go out. However, there was no evidence they had been supported in planning a budget or scheduling this regularly so their preferences could be met. People did not always experience consistent support to go out for activities and be part of their community. For example, we reviewed a 60-day period, which showed a person had only gone out with staff 3 times for community-based activities, another person had only gone out 4 times. The service had a weekly timetable of activities for people, but records did not show these were consistently available. People were funded for 1:1 care daily, but there was no evidence of consistent planning of when they would receive this support. Relatives gave us mixed feedback about activities. A relative said, "[Person] gets out and goes to town for lunch and shopping." However, another relative said, "What they could do better is more in-house activities, and I would like [person] to go out more as [person] needs encouragement."

People’s immediate needs were responded to. This minimised discomfort and concerns and meant people were provided reassurance. For example, records showed staff regularly checked with a person and ensured they were not experiencing pain or discomfort from their health conditions.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. All staff we spoke with told us they felt well supported. A staff member told us in relation to the registered manager, "[They] support us, make sure we are ok and are always around if needed."