CSS Care Ltd

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. For this key question we assessed the quality statements relating to; treating people as individuals and responding to people’s immediate needs. Whilst people and relatives spoke about occasions personal, cultural and social needs were met by staff, staff did not have sufficient guidance about people to fully understand their strengths, aspirations or unique backgrounds. We received feedback about communication and the language barriers faced by some people. We could not see evidence people’s communication needs had been considered, or the impact poor communication had on their care.

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.

People and relatives gave some positive examples of how personal, cultural and social needs were met. However, feedback about people’s communication needs being considered to enable them to engage in support was mixed. One relative told us, “[Person] is deaf but is able to lip read. The regular carer is learning sign language.” A person using the service added, “The carers are nice, they treat me well but some of them just don’t understand and I can’t communicate with them.”

Staff we spoke to confirmed they were aware of people’s preferences and people were treated as individuals. A staff member told us, “We know people’s likes and dislikes, I ask them.”

Care plans lacked evidence people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs had been considered; and there was no information about people’s life history to help staff understand what was important to them. There was limited information available to guide staff around people’s individual communication needs. The provider had not considered the impact language barriers had on people’s ability to engage in their care.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People and their relatives confirmed staff usually anticipated their needs and sought appropriate support from healthcare professionals when required. One person said, “I have a [medical condition], the carers understand my illness and know what to do when I am unwell”. Relatives told us staff communicated any changes or concerns with them.

There was no evidence to suggest people’s views and wishes were not listened to. However, due to language barriers some staff faced, we could not be assured they would be able to fully understand or anticipate people’s needs.

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.