Master Care

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

The service was caring. People were treated as individuals with kindness and respect. Staff worked with compassion and encouraged people to maintain their dignity, promote their independence and were supported to make their own choices. People’s immediate needs were addressed. The culture of the service was caring and supportive and the wellbeing of staff was considered.

This service scored 0 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with care, compassion, and respect; people told us this and we found staff to speak about people with kindness and regard. People told us staff treated them in a patient and gentle, yet professional, manner. One relative told us, ‘Master Care listens, interacts and offers valuable advice when necessary. Each carer is genuine in the care they provide and nothing is too much trouble. To have such a conscientious team is rare these days but Master Care strive to maintain the first class service they offer.’ Other relatives agreed with one adding, ‘The service picks the right people to do the job and they do the job well. Staff seem to really care and they have the right attitude; that is their strength.’ Staff spoke about people with respect and thoughtfulness and warmly provided us with examples of where their support had resulted in positive outcomes for the people they supported. One staff member said of the support they had provided, ‘Witnessing [person who used the service] progress and seeing the positive impact on their life was incredibly rewarding. It reinforced my commitment to providing compassionate care and motivated me to continue seeking ways to enhance the quality of life for those I support. It also strengthened my belief in the value of personalised, holistic care approaches.’ The culture of the service was one of support and nurture that cared for each other; staff told us this and the service’s aims and objectives indicated this. One staff member said, ‘The service is led by a visionary management team that is committed to creating a positive and inclusive work culture. They are approachable, supportive, and transparent, encouraging open communication, feedback, and idea sharing amongst all the staff.’ The registered manager told us they worked with staff on a regular basis and tried to encourage a positive culture, working together as if family. Health professionals agreed staff worked well together in a caring manner.

People were treated as individuals with care and support provided to meet their individual needs, wishes and choices. One relative told us, ‘Master Care is a truly dedicated team of professional carers. Their attention to detail is first class and each member is a credit to the company. Their professionalism, politeness, and smart appearance shines through and they go above and beyond to support their clients and families.’ Health professionals agreed with one reporting the staff team to be, ‘professional and enthusiastic’ whilst delivering an ‘excellent’ service. Staff demonstrated they knew the needs of the people they supported well and understood the importance of treating people as individuals. One staff member told us, ‘I helped a person develop new routines and skills that allowed them to regain some of the independence they had lost. This not only improved their quality of life but also helped them achieve personal goals they thought were out of reach. Seeing their joy and increased confidence was incredibly rewarding. It made me feel proud and fulfilled, knowing that my support had such a positive impact on their life.’ We saw from care plans that people’s needs had been assessed on an individual basis whilst considering their strengths and abilities. Daily notes showed that support was delivered in line with people’s planned care and that staff respected people’s individual needs and choices.

People’s choices were respected and met and staff encouraged people to remain independent and be in control of the care they received; people told us this and staff gave examples of how they supported this approach. One person who used the service described how staff allowed them to do all that they were able to themselves but always offered to assist if needed; they said, ‘Staff always offer to do more for me.’ Staff gave us many examples of how they supported people’s independence, choice, and control. One staff member said, ‘I supported a person recovering from limited mobility and who felt isolated. By setting small, achievable goals during each visit and providing consistent encouragement, we were able to gradually improve their mobility and confidence. Over time, the person regained enough independence to engage in activities they once enjoyed, significantly enhancing their quality of life. This experience was rewarding for both us and showed me the impact personalised care can have and I was fulfilled knowing I played a part in helping the person regain their independence and happiness.’ People were provided with a Service User Guide at the commencement of the service which gave them information in relation to how their independence would be supported and how they remained in control of the care they received. We saw that care plans considered and supported people’s independence and were completed in a manner that put people in control of the care service they received. People were also provided with information on advocacy services should they need them.

The service specialised in supporting people at the end of their lives so it was important the service was able to work quickly and flexibly to support people during this difficult time; our evidence showed the service was adept at working in this way. People told us that the service worked with other professionals to ensure they received an effective, safe, personalised service at the point they needed it, often during a crisis. One relative told us, ‘It was all very efficient. A decision was made for my [family member] to have overnight care and it was arranged for that night.’ Another relative told us how the service not only supported the person using the service, but their family also. They said, ‘The service we received was just as much for the family as the individual client and the support we received was excellent.’ The health professionals the service worked with on a regular basis, and who helped to arrange for the care to be delivered, agreed the quality of the care was consistently of a good quality with one describing it as, ‘excellent.’ Staff demonstrated they were committed to providing a consistently good quality service that kept people safe. They gave us examples of where they had responded to people’s needs and provided support to keep people safe and comfortable. They told us that where emergencies occurred, they stayed with the person affected and that the management team would arrange for other staff to attend their next call. One relative we spoke with confirmed this by telling us, ‘I was told if a carer was 10 minutes late, I should ring the office. I did, and it turns out there was an accident on the road. They arranged for another carer to come to me very quickly.’

Staff consistently told us they were supported, cared for, and felt valued by the service. They spoke of a management team who were accessible, knowledgeable, open, and supportive; the registered manager confirmed this was the approach they aimed for. One staff member said, ‘The culture within the service is truly exceptional. It’s supportive, nurturing, and a caring environment that prioritises the wellbeing of both the individuals we support and the staff team. Our service is built on a foundation of empathy, kindness, and understanding, and this is reflected in every aspect of our work.’ All staff agreed with another saying, ‘Staff morale is generally good, and I feel valued in my role. My experience working here has been positive, with the management team being approachable and supportive. They are responsive to feedback and are genuinely committed to improving the service.’ We saw that the service worked in an open and transparent manner that openly encouraged staff to provide feedback, offer ideas and help to problem-solve, all of which encouraged them to deliver a good quality, person-centred service. The service sought information on staff’s health needs and risk assessed the homes of people they were due to work in, aiding their health and wellbeing. They provided ongoing and consistent support, both formally and informally, and had systems in place to ensure staff remained competent in their roles. We saw that supervisions provided constructive feedback and monitored staff’s wellbeing.