Alpha Care and Support Services Limited

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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. An initial assessment was undertaken to find out about the people using the service, their care needs, their interests, and their support needs. People and those important to them were involved in the assessment process so staff could capture accurate and detailed information. This information was used to inform care planning. People’s care plans had information about their care needs, any medical conditions the person lived with and how they wanted their care provided. Care workers confirmed people they supported had a detailed care plan and risk assessment which they reviewed regularly. A relative said “ Every year we have a review , we are having one soon with the social workers, the provider does other meetings too to discuss [person] needs.”

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. An initial assessment was undertaken to find out about the people using the service, their care needs, their interests, and their support needs. People and those important to them were involved in the assessment process so staff could capture accurate and detailed information. This information was used to inform care planning. People’s care plans had information about their care needs, any medical conditions the person lived with and how they wanted their care provided. Care workers confirmed people they supported had a detailed care plan and risk assessment which they reviewed regularly. A relative said “ Every year we have a review , we are having one soon with the social workers, the provider does other meetings too to discuss [person] needs.”

The service 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.They worked alongside services that delivered support to people as part of their daily routine. Systems were in place to share information which included team meeting to discuss people’s care. The staff communicated well with each other. There were regular handovers of information and meetings as well as systems for sharing written communication. The staff told us they felt well informed, one staff member said “ If we have any concerns we call the office, they are really helpful, “ The team meetings also give us the oppurtunity to speak up if we have any ideas or concerns.”

The provider supported people to manage their wellbeing and maximise their independence, choice and control.Staff were able to identify what people could do for themselves as well as identifying where skills could be developed to maximise independence. The provider had assessed people’s needs and created care plans to reflect these assessments. They knew people well and were familiar with their needs. People’s relatives told us they were consulted about assessments and reviews. People’s healthcare needs were assessed. Staff helped people to monitor their own health needs and to attend healthcare appointments. Staff consulted with other professionals and incorporated their guidance into support plans.

A relative told us they thought the service was good at meeting healthcare needs. Their comments included, “Staff support [person] to eat healthily and make sure [person] are involved in food preparation” and “Staff support the person to exercise a lot daily , they are also about to incorporate swimmimg.”

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Staff knew how to identify safety concerns and who to report them to in order to improve the quality of service people received.

There were systems for learning when things went wrong. People’s relatives told us they had been informed of accidents, incidents and other concerns. One relative told us how [person] had a fall on the stairs resulting in a grazed knee. When we discussed this further with the provider they explained [person] missed a step on the stairs which was noted as a near miss.

Following any accidents or incidents, the staff recorded these and they were investigated. The manager met with staff to discuss these and learn about how improvements could be made.

The manager had a system for tracking incidents and identifying themes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s care records included information about people’s capacity to consent to their care. However, we found in some care records there was conflicting information that was not in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and mental capacity assessments were not decision specific. For example, one person’s records stated they had capacity to make decisions about their support, but due to concerns about their safety, restrictive practices had been put in place . This highlighted a lack of understanding from the provider around the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager took on board this feedback sent us assurance they had been in contact with the local authority to follow the correct process.

Relatives told us they were consulted and involved in decision making.The staff had undertaken training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and had an understanding of this and how to apply their knowledge.