South Norfolk Carers Limited

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. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and caring attitudes had significant shortfalls. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred support.

This service scored 30 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not consistently treat people with kindness, empathy, and compassion. People gave us examples of where the service had not demonstrated a caring and compassionate approach. One relative said, ‘We don’t feel the [registered] manager really listens to our requests as improvements in [family member’s] care have not happened. They demonstrate no empathy.’ Staff told us they did not feel respected or valued and that they did not receive the support they needed. One staff member told us, ‘It is very difficult to discuss anything with the [registered] manager. If they disagree with you, there is no discussion. They talk over you and has been quite rude at times. I avoid speaking to them unless completely necessary.’ Another staff member said, ‘It is my feeling that the [registered] manager shows no compassion.’

The service did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Whilst people told us their independence was encouraged at the point of delivery of care, the lack of individualised care and support, and flexibility of the service meant people did not feel valued as individuals. The care plans we viewed did not always reflect people as individuals or take into account their strengths, aspirations and expectations with some often only containing a list of tasks for staff to perform. They did not give an essence of who the person was or assess people’s full needs.

The service did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing. People did not have choice and control over their care as they did not receive care that was consistent and as agreed; people’s preferences and needs could not be met because of this. A relative explained the impact of calls not being at the time requested. They said, ‘I have complained that visit times impact on my [family member’s] health. I have asked for visits at certain times. This was provided at first, but as time has gone on, [family member] seems to be getting pushed further down the priority list. Carers now often come very early which is exhausting for [family member].’ Staff agreed that the lack of continuity of care impacted negatively on those people that used the service. The provider’s service user guide told service users that they would try to match staff to people’s needs, that staff would be briefed on people’s needs prior to attending to them and that the service would make people aware if their regular carer was not available. These actions helped people to remain in control of the care they received however the service could not demonstrate that these actions had consistently taken place.

The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always act to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress. People’s needs and wishes were not consistently met, particularly around the time they wished for their care and support to be delivered and in the way they wished to receive a rota. Where people had raised concerns about this, they told us the service had failed to listen to these requests and understand the negative impact for them. The care plans we viewed did not always contain enough information to help staff support people at times of distress. For example, for a person living with advanced dementia and who was unable to effectively communicate, the care plan did not provide staff with enough information on how to support this person should they be in pain or distress, how to recognise this and what action to take. However, people did not raise any concerns in relation to their regular staff supporting them at the point of delivery of care.

Whilst opportunities to improve staff wellbeing were available, the service did not promote the wellbeing of their staff by ensuring staff felt able to access these and that they were actively listened to when raising concerns. Staff told us morale was low, that they did not feel valued and that they lacked support; they did not feel the service cared about them. One staff member told us, ‘To be honest, it makes me sad. I see enthusiastic people, keen to do the job, lose their sparkle and become jaded and stressed. I think the job of a carer carries its own stresses without the additional pressures imposed by the current management.’ Whilst staff endeavoured to prevent the poor culture impact on the care they provided, the people who used the service, and their relatives, told us they observed staff being under supported and placed under pressure. Records showed that not all staff received regular formal support, and no staff meetings had taken place since March 2024 meaning staff had not been given the opportunity to meet and provide peer support.