Bobbins

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were supported by some staff who knew them well, although care plans were not always reflective of some of this knowledge. Additionally, care plans did not always include key details on how to safely support someone to ensure consistent approaches. For example, when people became distressed there was limited guidance about what this looked like and how to support person at each stage. Another person who had specific needs around eating and drinking was not being followed. This meant inconsistent support or sometimes being provided. Staff support was not consistent and person centred all times because training was not underpinning it. Communication systems for individuals were not person specific or in line with their assessed needs. We shared our concerns with the provider who immediately took actions to try and rectify some of the issues. By the second site visit improvements started to be seen to person centred care because staff had received and increase training. Additionally, the provider sent central support to assist staff in rewriting and reviewing care plans. Some communication systems had been put in place which continued to be developed.

This service scored 68 (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 sometimes supported by staff who did not understand how to treat them as individuals. Not all staff demonstrated respect in their interactions with people. Individual activities were in place and people went out in the community. Although this was not always person centred because it relied on people car sharing and driver availability. Relatives said there was sometimes a problem because not enough drivers in the home. However, they did state their family member went out regularly.

Staff have not always received adequate training or guidance to ensure all care being delivered was centred around the person and delivered with respect. Some staff had developed strong relationships with the people and understood that communication styles. Whilst others lacked the knowledge and understanding to create these meaningful relationships.

People received mixed support from staff which was not always person centred. This was because often it was reactive rather than proactive. For example, staff were responding to people’s distress rather than proactively preventing it. People who became distressed or anxious were often provided with reactive journeys into the community. However, some trips were in response to planned events such as going to school or day services. By the second visit improvements had started to be seen because staff had better understanding of people and their needs.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.