Almond Tree Care Ltd

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 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.

However, we had mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding the level of engagement they had in their care planning. Whilst people told us this had been thorough when they first received the service, people gave mixed opinions on how involved they had been since. However, people did not raise concerns about this and we saw from records that reviews took place with people on a regular basis. These did not, however, demonstrate what level of engagement people had in relation to their care plan reviews.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We saw that care was mostly delivered in line with legislation and best practice guidance and that nationally recognised risk assessing tools were used. We did find some shortfalls in relation to best practice guidance and legislation relating to medicines and the Mental Capacity Act 2025. However, people’s experience of the care they received demonstrated that it met their needs and preferences. One person who used the service said, “I am really pleased with it [the service], nothing is too much trouble.”

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.

Care plans and risk assessments generally contained a good level of information to assist staff in delivering appropriate care, treatment and support and in the event people needed to move between services. The people who used the service, and their relatives, told us they generally saw the same group of staff and that they worked well together to provide effective care. One person who used the service told us, “My carers are invested in me.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The people who used the service, and their relatives, told us staff supported them to remain healthy, both in the long term and during emergencies. For example, one relative told us how staff had called the GP for their family member when they found them unwell. Another relative told us how impressed they were with staff when they recognised their family member was dehydrated and took steps to support them and ensure they were well.

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.

People told us that the care they received met their needs and had been a positive experience for them. They told us they received care from staff who were professional, caring and dedicated. The records we viewed confirmed people’s care was regularly reviewed and monitored.

Whilst people told us staff were good at seeking their consent when delivering care, and we saw that people had formally consented to receiving care and support, we found some shortfalls in relation to consent.

For one person who had informed the service they had a lasting power of attorney in place, the service had failed to seek confirmation of this. The person who used the service was making care decisions and without checking who had the legal authority to make such decisions, the service could not be assured this met the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Furthermore, the registered manager demonstrated they lacked knowledge in regard to this legislation.