Galilee 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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s preferences around care not being reviewed or adhered to. Whilst some staff were kind and considerate, this was not the case for all staff based on feedback from people and their relatives.

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 provider failed to ensure people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, and to respect their privacy and dignity. People and relatives fed back that staff were not always caring and considerate. Comments included, “There are 2 or 3 that are very friendly, but the others are a bit miserable and occasionally a bit rude. I get the feeling some don’t really do the job”, “Many staff like a laugh and joke there are some that I don’t like, like some staff manhandle me” and “Some staff are very good and engage actively with [family member] and the family but feel that some respond negatively or answer back.” One relative fed back that staff did not consider their family members risk of social isolation. They stated they had requested for the person’s curtains to be left open so they could look out of the window which they stated staff did not adhere to. They stated this left their loved one, “Isolated from the world.”

Other people and relatives did feedback positively about some staff with comments including, “[Staff] go above and beyond”, “Staff engage pleasantly”, “[Staff] are like a second family” and “There is a carer I love, the carer I love, she treats [person] like grandmother.”

The provider failed to ensure people were always treated as individuals and people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. There was no evidence in people's care plans that people and relatives (where appropriate) were involved in the planning of their care. Care plans contained little information around how people communicated, their spiritual needs, their likes and dislikes and not always whether they had a preference of a male or female carer. Where this preference of carer was recorded, we saw examples on care notes where this was not adhered to. One relative told us, “[Family member] has 1 male carer and 1 female every day which shocked me.” Relatives also told us that for their loved ones who had cognitive impairment, it was important for them to have the same care staff as much as possible but that this was not adhered to. One relative told us, “Different staff, I have asked for the same staff, but [person] sees different staff, I’m not too happy, I’ve asked them to stop sending new people. They would change for a month then they revert back.”

The provider 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. We saw from staff rotas that people’s timings of calls varied each day which meant they were unable to plan their day effectively. Comments included, “They come at different times breakfast is between 7:00-10:30, it’s never the same”, “I have had calls from 11:01 [for lunch] which is too early” and “Sometimes they are very late. It impacts me, I can’t do some things, I have to sit around laying in bed waiting for them to turn up wondering if they are going to be here.”

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We saw from staff rotas that staff were often not staying for the full length of the call which people and relatives told us impacted them. One person told us, “They [staff] just rush around and do what they can and get out quick, sometimes they leave the jobs half done.” Another person said, “I missed out on breakfast yesterday, a friend got me something.” A relative told us staff would cut the call short and that their relatives personal care was impacted, “I would prefer if they used warm water and a soft washcloth, not wipes. … they don’t use warm soapy water, I wish they would do better.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We noted from the rotas that staff were not always provided with travel time. This placed additional pressure on them to ensure they completed all of their care calls when people were expecting them to arrive.

There were staff that fed back positively about their wellbeing and said they felt supported. Comments included, “I used to think I was favoured [by the provider] but all staff feel the same. We all feel supported.”