Abihealth - Southwest Office

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

We assessed 5 quality statements in relation to kindness, compassion and dignity, treating people as individuals, independence, choice and control, responding to people’s immediate needs and workforce wellbeing and enablement. We found staff knew how to treat people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were treated as individuals, were encouraged to be independent and have choice and control over their care. Care plans identified areas of individualised support needed and considered people’s protected characteristics, including religion, cultural needs and preferred pronouns. Staff responded to people’s immediate needs. Staff told us the organisation looked after their wellbeing and they had regular breaks and time between calls. Staff received regular supervisions and team meetings. The organisation had provisions in place for staff who were from oversees on a visa sponsorship. However, people told us staff did not always stay for the full duration of the scheduled call and were often late. People told us that staff lateness did not adversely affect them in most cases. Some care plans and risk assessments had conflicting information.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives told us staff treated them with kindness, compassion and dignity. One person told us “They really care and are compassionate.”

Staff described the individual approach they took to ensure they treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. Leaders felt assured that staff was treating people in line with the organisation values.

We asked the local authority for feedback and no concerns were raised about the way the service ensured kindness, compassion and dignity for people. A GP had provided positive feedback to the service about how they were “impressed with the care provided.”

People and their relatives described to us the individual approach staff took to meet their needs. One person told us “Staff were respectful of their faith and had learnt some phrases to communicate with them.”

Staff showed an awareness of how to treat people as individuals. One staff member told us “It’s important we talk about things with the people we support. So, if someone has a certain religion, we need to make sure we do not cross those boundaries. We must listen to them and respond to them by being caring and respectful. We have to be professional and get consent, respecting beliefs, choices and not force people to do things they don’t want to do.”

Care plans identified areas of individualised support needed and considered people’s protected characteristics, including religion, cultural needs and preferred pronouns.

People told us staff supported them to be independent and have choice and control around their care needs.

Staff told us they supported people in line with their care plans. They demonstrated how they supported people to be independent and how they offered people choice and control. One comment included “I help [person] choose her meals. She will say to me ‘you choose for me,’ and I will tell her, ‘Let’s look at what you can have together and then you can tell me what you want.’ It is important that she gets the choice as this will help her stay independent for longer.”

People’s care records demonstrated individual information about people and how they should be supported to maximise their independence. However, some care plans and risk assessments had conflicting information. For example, one person’s health risk assessment stated a person did not have sensory impairment. However, the falls risk assessment stated the person had visual/sight problems. The information was not clear between care plans and risk assessments about how a person needed to be supported to maximise their independence.

Most people provided positive feedback about how staff responded to their needs when providing care and support. They told us office staff responded promptly.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of who to contact when people needed urgent help or support. Staff told us they had enough time to provide support to people and provided care in line with the care plan.

Staff told us they had regular breaks and time allocated between calls to support their wellbeing. They told us they received regular supervisions and team meetings. Most of the staff were from oversees on a visa sponsorship. Leaders told us they provided staff who worked in the area with an extra £100 per month to help with cost-of-living expenses. They also helped with accommodation for staff until they found alternative places to live. The Nominated Individual (NI) acted as a guarantor for staff looking for sustainable accommodation. They provided access to vehicles and offered an interest-free loan for staff to purchase a vehicle for work purposes. The provider paid for sponsored staff to complete National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ), so they had the relevant knowledge and skills to perform in their role

The service had policies in place to support staff wellbeing, including care and support work allocation, lone working, recruitment, appraisal and supervision.