MELM Care Solutions

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 told us they were fond of their care staff and relatives felt like they were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff promoted individuality through personalised care, however, the providers systems and processes did not always ensure independence, choice and control. Staff told us they were comfortable in their place of work and felt their wellbeing and workplace enablement was supported by the provider.

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.

People told us they were fond of their care staff. One person told us “I like [Staff Name] they’re lovely.” Feedback people shared with us indicated they felt care staff were kind and treated them compassionately.

Support staff spoke fondly of the people they supported and demonstrated a caring approach to their interactions. Staff respected people’s privacy and showed genuine compassion for the people they supported.

Feedback from partners indicated there was a lack positive behaviour support and end of life care training available to staff, but no concerns regarding staff conduct or ability were raised.

We obsvered staff treating people with kindness and compassion and the provider’s systems and processes promoted a caring and compassionate environment.

Staff promoted individuality through personalised care. Feedback from people indicated they felt they were treated fairly by staff. One relative told us their relative appeared to be comfortable with support staff and they felt staff met their needs well.

We gained feedback from staff and leaders as part of this assessment who demonstrated good knowledge about people’s needs and personal preferences.

No specific feedback was obtained from partners in relation to staff treating people as individuals.

We saw staff treated people with kindness and respected individuality. Staff tailored and measured their approach and communication style to suit the needs of the person they were working with. People responded well to staff and their tailored approach.

Processes were in place to ensure that people were treated as individuals. For example, risk assessments and care plans contained information regarding people’s personal preferences and care related needs. We did find some care plans to be lacking some specific information, but this did not appear to directly impact the care people received as staff appeared to know them well.

People were supported to communicate with their family. One person told us this was important to them. Feedback they shared also indicated they felt they had choice and control over their daily routines and activities. One person told us, “Staff help me choose my clothes.”

Staff described how they supported people to make informed choices, and how they promoted people to have choice and control. Staff told us about activities and days out that were planned for people and about the importance of finding things to do with people that they enjoyed. Feedback from leaders indicated they involved people in making choices about their care routines. However, feedback from leaders also highlighted that decision specific capacity assessments were not always completed to ensure people’s needs and ability to make choices were suitably understood.

An independent advocacy was involved with people living at the service to support with making decisions and accessing information. They told us they observed people to be settled at the service and felt care was suitable for people’s needs. We observed staff supporting people to make day to day decisions.

The providers systems and processes did not always ensure independence, choice and control. For example, financial support assessments were not always in place to ensure care routines fully considered people’s capacity, abilities and personal preferences.

People and their relatives told us that staff were responsive to their needs. For example, when people wanted food or drink, staff responded. One person told us, “[Staff member] helps me get a drink when I want one.”

We observed staff responding to people in a kind manner. For example, one person gestured for physical contact and reassurance through the form of hand holding, staff responded and appropriately facilitated this need.

The providers systems and processes facilitated staff ability to meet daily immediate needs. Staff rotas ensured staff were available to provide daily support. Care plans provided essential guidance and information on how to meet people’s immediate needs.

Staff told us they were comfortable in their place of work and felt their wellbeing and workplace enablement was supported by the provider. Staff told us they were satisfied with the work shift pattern and felt they had access to suitable breaks during working hours. Staff also told us the provider and leadership team were supportive and responded promptly when things were raised.

The provider's systems and processes supported staff wellbeing and enablement. For example, staff received regular supervision with a senior member of the team to review their performance and provide an opportunity to raise concerns. Staff received training and support.