Apex Prime Care - Basingstoke

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 their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

This included initial assessments of people’s needs prior to care packages commencing as well as when staff became aware of changes in people’s needs.

The provider did not always plan or deliver people’s care and treatment with them or in a way that reflected what was important to them. The provider did not follow legislation or current good practice when for example planning people’s care in relation to fire safety, diabetes and dementia. Medicines practice did not always follow national good practice guidance.

The provider worked effectively with other teams and services to support people. Records showed the service collaborated closely with a range of health professionals, including social workers, occupational therapists, community nurses and doctors. Staff told us they contacted district nurses promptly when they had concerns about a person’s skin health, and district nurses provided support that helped people achieve positive health outcomes. Health professionals we spoke with raised no concerns about the service. They told us the provider had made recent improvements and that they worked well together.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways that maximised their independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

Most people’s healthcare needs were identified within their care plans, including the level of support required to maintain good health. People and their relatives told us they felt staff responded well to changes in needs and took appropriate action when concerns arose.

The provider communicated changes in people’s healthcare needs effectively. Staff received updates promptly through the electronic care planning system, which enabled them to access key information and respond to changes in a timely way.

The provider did not always monitor people’s care and treatment effectively to drive continuous improvement. They did not consistently ensure outcomes were positive, reliable or aligned with what people expected.

The provider did not always involve people meaningfully in reviewing their care. They told us care plans were updated annually, but some people said they had not been invited to take part in reviews or share changes in their needs or preferences. People who transferred from a previous agency had not all received a review of their care or an update to their care plan to ensure all their needs continued to be met by their care arrangements. One person said, “No one came out to see if everything is OK, and if that is what he still needs.” Records showed reviews had fallen behind schedule. The service had developed plans to improve this and ensure reviews were brought up to date.

Some people’s diabetes and dementia care plans did not sufficient personalised information explaining how the condition affected the individual or what specific support they might require. This meant staff as well as health and social care professionals did not have all the information needed to effectively evaluate people’s care outcomes.

Staff recorded information about the care and support they provided at each visit. When requested by health professionals, staff documented what people ate and drank, which supported monitoring of nutritional needs. However, we found gaps in some records where staff were expected to monitor people’s input and output, which meant all information would not be available to inform health professionals’ decision making.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

There were policies and procedures in place to ensure valid consent to care was obtained. People told us staff sought their consent before delivering care. Staff had a good knowledge around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how to practically apply this in their everyday roles. They told us they always asked for people’s consent before each care task and respected their right to decline care.

Where people had appointed a power of attorney, the provider ensured this legal authority to act on a person’s behalf was verified. This helped to ensure the provider was following the correct procedures around gaining consent to care.