Caring Hands Nottingham 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

People were supported to have choice and control and make decisions about how their support was provided. They were encouraged and helped by staff to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain their independence. People were supported to understand their rights and how the service would make sure these were respected. People’s needs and comfort were a priority and staff anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort or distress. Staff were alert to people’s needs and took time to observe, communicate and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs.

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.

Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity and spoke of how they supported people in this way during their care calls. Senior Staff told us how passionate the registered manager was about providing quality care for people. One member of staff told us, “The registered manager really cares about people and their welfare.”

People were treated with kindness and dignity. People told us their privacy was respected and staff approached them in a way that made them feel comfortable. One relative told us, “Caring Hands is an appropriate title as the staff are caring and respectful to me as well. They are patient as everything takes time and they address my family member by their preferred name which is what they answer to. They are gentle and coax them into walking under supervision without their frame. They always say, ‘is it okay to wash your hair now?’ They encourage them to walk a few yards without the frame, to put their own shoes on and to take the cups into the kitchen, they can virtually now walk independently.”

Commissioners working with the service who had recently carried out a compliance visit showed the service scored 100% for ‘positive experiences’ for people using the service.

The majority of relatives we spoke with gave positive feedback around staff supporting their family members to remain independent where possible. One relative told us, “I can give you an example of caring, [name] had terrible sickness and they were really good with that and stayed with them for a few hours as they were quite distressed. They also ring me to tell me if something has run out. They can now make a cup of tea, although they have slowed down, and they discuss what sandwiches they want.”

Care plans we reviewed were person centred and showed people and their relatives had been involved in discussions. People’s dignity had been considered, with their preference of a male or female carer having been considered. Details about how people wished their care to be provided was detailed in full for staff to follow.

The provider had conducted a survey with people and their relatives. Of the clients surveyed, 99% felt that the service is caring. Comments taken from the survey were that, ‘Carers take time to understand and they are empathetic.’ The only complaint was that sometimes when they are running late they don’t ring to inform us. The provider had created an action plan from this to address the shortfalls identified by people and their relatives.

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.

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.

The provider disputed the allegations which led to the assessment around a potential closed culture, allegations of modern slavery, poor governance and oversight by the management team. Former staff who had raised concerns prior to our site visit spoke of not being able to raise their concerns with the provider, and feeling unable to speak up to the relevant authorities. Current staff we spoke with all gave the same responses when asked about the support in place for them from the management team and feeling able to raise concerns when needed.

The provider had a policy in place for whistleblowing and Freedom To Speak Up, staff we spoke with after our site visit told us they understood how to access this. The staff members we spoke with told us they felt confident raising concerns. However, multiple staff who had raised allegations about the conduct of the provider did not feel they had a voice and had expressed concerns around a closed culture.