OASIS West London Office

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

Care plans did not always have enough guidance in them for staff to follow. Daily care notes were not in enough detail and therefore it was difficult to establish how care was delivered to people. However, people and relatives told us staff were caring, kind and compassionate. Staff supported people to meet their cultural and religious needs.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us the staff were kind and caring. One person said, “My carer [care worker] is very kind, I can’t fault her.” A relative said, “My family member can’t speak highly enough about their carer; she is so kind and compassionate.” Everyone we spoke with were very praiseworthy of staff and how they had gone the extra mile. Staff demonstrated a caring attitude to people, and this was evident from all the comments people and relatives made about them.

Staff and leaders spoke about people in a respectful manner. Staff told us they spent time getting to know people and offering emotional support. Everyone we spoke with told us how caring the staff were.

The provider had obtained feedback from the local authority and some health care professionals about the service. Feedback was overall positive about interaction between people, staff and other professionals.

All people and relatives we spoke with told us staff were attentive to their individual needs and treated them well. Comments such as, “She takes them to special places when they are out. She took him to a fun fair last week for a religious festival.” And “There has always been care workers with a similar background to meet their needs. They know how to cook the food she likes and speak in her language." A relative told us, “The care workers speak in [my relative’s] language which settles them.”

Staff and leaders told us they respected people as individuals. Staff and leaders were knowledgeable about people’s backgrounds, including their cultural and religious beliefs. Staff we spoke with told us they provided care and support according to the person’s preferences and wishes. For example, if a person had expressed a preference to have a female care worker this was arranged by the agency. Other examples included staff supporting people to observe their religious beliefs for example, by attending a place of worship or attending a significant event such as a festival which was important to the person.

Staff had training in equality and diversity. This meant they understood people’s diverse needs. The provider had policies and procedures in place about equality, diversity, and discrimination. This was a useful resource for staff when required.

People told us they were able to make choices about their care. One person said, “I can make lots of choices each day. The carer asks me what I want to eat, what shopping to buy etc." A relative told us, “[My family member] can make everyday choices, so if they want to go out for a walk the carer will take them.” People were encouraged to be independent. One family member said, “‘My family member can do things herself. I think the carers wash her, but she can do some personal things when the carers remind her. She can walk with a frame a little.”

Staff and leaders told us they promoted people’s choices and supported them to be as independent as possible. Staff when asked were able to explain people’s likes and preferences. Staff told us they promoted people’s independence in a way that they preferred.

Care plans had been signed by people to confirm they had agreed to the care and support they received. However, within the care records there was little evidence of how staff were expected to promote choices for people. For example, some people’s care plan detailed what type of meals, sandwiches they liked, but staff did not record on their daily notes what people had been given. Therefore, it was hard to establish if people had been given a choice and if their likes and dislikes were promoted. Care plans evidenced that people had equipment in place to maintain their independence. For example, some people needed a hoist to be transferred to their recliner chair they sat in during the day. Some people who needed to use a mobility aid needed two staff members to support them safely whilst they were walking.

People told us they were happy with how staff responded to their needs. Comments such as, “Visits are as requested that fit in with family life”, “My visits are at a time that suits me. I am very happy," and “She [staff] will call me if she feels they are not well. She gets advice from me what to do. We are always in contact." Everyone we spoke with told us the staff were very responsive and attentive to their needs.

Staff told us they knew people well. Staff in most cases were able to attend to the same person on a regular basis. This meant they would see or observe any changes to their health and wellbeing. In addition, staff could follow up with any request made by people. In one case staff needed more time to support a person. They communicated this to the care coordinator and after speaking to the funding authority additional time was agreed to ensure their needs were met.

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the agency. All the staff we spoke with told us they felt supported and valued by the management team. Staff told us they could raise any concerns and they would be addressed. Staff did not report any concerns about the culture or ethos of the agency.

The provider had in place team meetings and one to one meeting with individual members of staff. The registered manager and coordinators had an open-door policy. Staff were encouraged to speak up and raise concerns. The manager and coordinators were proactive when supporting their care teams. This meant people were cared for by care workers who were happy in their role and well supported.