Archived: Exclusive Care Services

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 found a breach of the legal regulations in relation to dignity and respect. People were not always treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. People were not consistently supported to have choice and control over their care. While some people and relatives we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

While some people and relatives we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. A relative told us their loved one had been left without a stoma bag (a stoma is an opening on the abdomen that can be connected to either your digestive or urinary system to allow waste to be diverted out of your body) and the staff member had not reported this. This was undignified for the person who the relative described as a ‘proud man’. There had been numerous complaints to the service regarding staff being rude or rough with people. One person had fed back staff had told them to stand, when they were not able to. That person also complained about staff being ‘rough’ when delivering personal care. Some people shared positive feedback about the support they received. One person told us, “Yes they do treat us with dignity and respect.”

Some care staff we spoke with did not know people well. For example, staff could not always tell us about people’s individual needs and preferences, or risks to the people they supported. Staff did not have adequate documentation or guidance to follow to support people with their specific needs which put people at risk.

People were not always treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. People had not always been supported to maintain their dignity during personal care. For example, a spot check identified a staff member had not covered a person during personal care. Staff had to be instructed by the staff completing the spot check to cover the person to protect their dignity. A different family member had complained that their loved one had been left undressed in an undignified way. People were not always treated with kindness. The providers complaint log detailed people had reported staff to be rough during personal care. One family had complained staff were rude and verbally abusive to their loved one. During staff meetings, staff were reminded to provide ‘extra tender care’ and to be ‘patient’ and ‘delicate’ with people at the end of their lives. Minutes noted people and their loves ones ended packages due to complaints, with 3 of those packages being people at the end of their lives. The complaints stated staff were ‘ignoring people’, ‘not talking to them’, ‘rushing’ and ‘not spending enough time.’ One person had complained their property was not treated with respect and staff had broken items within their home.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

While some people and relatives we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. People and their loved ones shared concerns with the service relating to the support their loved one received. One person said, “The whole point of getting carers was to help my loved one as they are finding it harder now to get dressed. When my loved one was in the bathroom staff were in the hallway on their phone totally ignoring my loved one. At no point did staff attempt to wash them, do their teeth, brush their hair. Nothing at all.” Another relative said, “The support worker was ignoring loved ones needs.”

Although some staff spoke about people kindly, they were unable to describe how they ensured people's independence, choice and control over their lives were supported or encouraged. Staff did not have adequate guidance or training to support people with their independence or choice. Some people had been harmed as staff were not appropriately skilled to care for their needs. The provider and registered manager could not tell us how they promoted people’s independence, or ensured staff gave people choice or control over their care. They completed no checks on this. When people made complaints about the care they received the provider would often terminate the care package. The provider and registered manager were not proactive in considering how they could support people further, for example there was no accessible communication for people who may find it difficult to understand information in a written format. The provider told us when a person asked for their hair to be washed, they would not normally do this as it was not hair washing day, this demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about choice and person-centred care.

People were not consistently supported to have choice and control over their care. People’s choices was not always respected. One person made a complaint to state they did not want a staff to return, due to them being ‘rough’ during personal care. The providers complaint log detailed the staff member would need to remain on the rota, as the allocations had already been completed. One relative complained their loved one was not being supported to make their own decisions and to be as independent as possible.

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.

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.