Pacific Care Services Limited - Isle of Wight

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Pre-service assessments were completed using information from referrals and discussions with people and their families. Wherever possible this was with the person in their current care location [hospital, care home or own home]. There was a process to review care plans/assessments at regular intervals or if needs changed.

A staff member said: “The care plans are created with the service user in mind by the people in the office and other professionals that assess the person.” Another added: “They [staff] are really good and are always updating them.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care plans and related records showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and best practice guidance. Care plans included details about meals, hydration, and medications routines. Care plans included information as to who was responsible for providing people with meals and reminders to leave additional drinks where appropriate. Daily records reflected these were provided. Staff demonstrated understanding of dietary needs. One told us “Yes, diabetes. Make sure they are taking their medication and their diet is compliant to care plan.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The registered manager and office staff understood how to seek support from health and social care staff when required. Care staff said they were generally able to access up to date information about people via an electronic app on their phones and that they also received phone calls or could phone office staff.

Health and social care professionals reported good communication with the service. For example, a health professional told us they had no concerns and added, “They [staff] work well with us and not had any issues.” Another said, “Communication between myself and Pacific Care has been very good over the years. They have consistently been open to my assessments and have followed the plans and advice I have put in place.”

The provider did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Care plans included information about people’s medicine but not what the medicine was prescribed for. This meant care staff may not understand risks resulting from these for example, blood thinning medicines and information about what care staff should look out for or what actions they should take. There was limited detail for a person with epilepsy about the type of seizures, factors that may increase risk of seizures and emergency actions pending the arrival of paramedics. Likewise for people with a diagnosis of diabetes there was a lack of individual detail within care plans meaning staff may not always have all necessary information to meet their day to day or emergency health needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The office team monitored people’s support and care to ensure this continued to meet their needs and regularly undertook care calls themselves providing opportunities to monitor people and care staff. Care staff told us they would call the office or on call if they identified any changes in a person’s needs or a possible new need.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. There were no decision specific mental capacity assessments within care plans. When discussing this with office staff in relation to a person who was receiving covert medicines, they could not provide a mental capacity assessment and were only able to provide a letter from the person’s GP agreeing to the covert administration of medicines. Office staff were not completing any mental capacity assessments for people who may have lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care and therefore give consent due to dementia or learning disability.

Care staff confirmed they sought verbal consent during care. For example, 1 told us, “You can always ask the person and get their consent how they want work to be done.” A review of records of care provided for people showed that people’s choices were respected if they declined planned or offered care.