Medistaff24

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 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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs in partnership with them.

The registered manager ensured people were fully involved in the assessment process. Initial assessments were completed before people began receiving care, with further reviews carried out whenever their circumstances or needs changed.

The registered manager told us that there are clear communication processes for staff to report any changes to people’s needs enabling timely follow-up and action. This helped ensure assessments remained accurate and reflective of people’s current needs and wishes.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in partnership with them, taking in to account what was important and mattered to each individual. Care was provided in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The registered manager told us they understood best practice guidance relating to people’s needs and demonstrated the process they used to ensure staff kept their knowledge up to date and worked effectively with other health care professionals.

Staff completed a range of training relevant to people’s conditions and needs, and peoples care plans contained detailed, person-centred information about their assessed needs, how these should be met and the outcomes people wished to achieve.

The service worked effectively across teams and services to support people. Information was shared appropriately so people only needed to tell their story once, helping ensure continuity and consistency of care.

There were processes to ensure people had timely referrals to healthcare professionals when needed. The registered manager told us they had positive working relationships with the neighbourhood nurses and occupational therapists. Communicating with them via phone and e-mail when additional support was needed for people.

Staff worked well together with clear systems and processes to share relevant information. Relatives told us staff communicated with them when needed, helping ensure people’s needs continued to be met.

The registered manager promoted an open and supportive culture where staff felt listened to. One staff member told us, “I feel like (person's name) always listens, will take on board concerns, and will meet for a coffee to talk about it.” This contributed to a cohesive and collaborative approach to care delivery.

The service 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.

People and their relatives told us that staff understood their needs well and supported them in a way that was proactive, personalised, and aligned with what was important to them. This enabled people to maintain healthier lifestyles, stay connected with others and remain as independent as possible.

One person’s relative told us staff support them to go swimming, encouraging regular gentle exercise which contributed positively to both their physical and emotional wellbeing.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support ongoing improvement. This helped ensure outcomes were positive, consistent, and aligned with both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The registered manager told us care plans were reviewed regularly with people to ensure they remained up to date and reflective of their current needs. However, people we spoke to gave mixed feedback: some told us they could not recall having regular reviews, while other people felt reviews took place when required. Despite this, people and their relatives felt confident that any changes were communicated clearly and accurately reflected in the support provided.

The service did not always ensure people were informed about their rights around consent or that these rights were consistently upheld when care and treatment were delivered.

Documentation reviewed during the inspection did not always reflect best practice. Where a person may have lacked the mental capacity to consent, mental capacity assessments were not always clear, or specific to the decision being assessed. In some cases, assessments did not describe the decision in question. One person was assessed as lacking capacity. This was not decision specific and where decisions had been made relating to their care there was no evidence of involvement or of best interest decisions. This meant we could not be assured of the process the provider followed to make important decisions relating to people's care.

These gaps in consent related documentation meant the provider could not always demonstrate that decisions were lawful, person centred, or compliant with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Although we found no evidence that people had been harmed, the lack of clear and robust records increased the risk of non-compliant practice and placed people at potential risk.