Innovative Start 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. This is the first comprehensive assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were good, and people's feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

People had their needs assessed prior to staff supporting them. Individual care plans were written. We found these varied in the content and accuracy. Some care plans needed to be updated to ensure they reflected people’s current needs and gave clear direction for staff on how to support them safely. For example, one person’s records referred to a broken bone without further explanation on how to support them.



People told us they thought they had been involved in discussions about their care. Comments included “I think that I was involved in my care plan. I remember it was read out to me at the time. It is followed as it should be.” Another person told us “I was involved with my care plan and as far as I am aware that is all followed correctly.” A relative commented “I was involved with the care plan but it has never been updated.” Some people told us reviews were not always carried out in a timely manner. One person told us “My care plan hasn’t been reviewed for a while,” another person told us “Reviews (are) not often enough.”

The provider did not always follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. We found care plans were not always clear about what support was needed. For instance, one person’s care plan said staff needed to use “proper lifting techniques.” There was no further guidance on what this meant. Another person’s care plan gave advice to care workers on how to manage a pressure wound, which was not in line with national guidelines. It had the potential to cause harm to the person’s skin if care workers did as instructed.

Care workers had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. Staff who supported the same group of people worked well as a team. One care worker told us “I am aware of people's needs through (name of care planning system). We get everyday updates through handover, communication books and through communication with colleagues.”

The provider ensured care workers had access to people’s records at all times. Staff told us “We use a digital system called (name of system) which keeps us up to date on any changes to the individual’s health or care plan” and “We have an application installed on our phones that provides us with information about clients' assessed needs. The application includes care plans.”

We saw evidence the provider worked with other agencies, such as health and social care professionals, to meet people’s needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being, 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.

People and their relatives told us they had confidence in staff to support them if they were unwell. Comments included, “They (staff) will always call her GP if they are worried about anything” and “(Family member) is in hospital at present with (an infection)…which her care workers noticed and contacted the GP about on our behalf.” Another person told us “They encourage me to do things for myself such as when I have (hypoglycaemia). They are there for me if I need them, but they let me give myself the glucose. They always stay by me until I feel normal again. They are aware of the risks involved.” A relative told us “Last year (family member) had a sore throat. Staff said to get the doctor who diagnosed (serious condition) and sent (family member) to hospital.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. For instance, we received mixed feedback about when care plans had been reviewed. Most people told us they received the support they had requested. One person with a specific health condition told us their desired outcomes were not always possible due to staff not arriving on time. This impacted on their well-being. Other people told us they felt they were supported to live how they wanted.

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

Care records demonstrated people had consented to their care and support. This was supported by what people told us. For example, “They do ask consent before they do things,” and “Staff chat through before starting care.”