Napier Homecare 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 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 79 (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. The provider made sure people’s care and treatment were effective by completing thorough, holistic needs assessments with them and those who knew them well. Assessments consistently considered people’s physical health, mental health, sensory needs, communication, social circumstances and identified risks.

Assessments were completed by staff who knew the person and understood their preferences. Review processes were embedded; changes in people’s needs were recorded and communicated to relevant staff. Staff also involved people and families in reviewing support approaches, and there was evidence of support being altered following requests from people or their relatives.

Where people lacked capacity for specific decisions, the provider obtained capacity assessments. There was evidence that mental capacity responsibilities were well understood.

Professionals reported collaborative working between the service and GP practices, helping ensure people’s needs were fully understood and managed.

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. People received effective and evidence‑based care. Staff used detailed support planning approaches that considered risks, communication needs, and preferred routines. We found care plans to be detailed and person centred, with some positive examples of tailored guidance such as communication guidelines for a hearing‑impaired person.

Risk assessments were detailed, with robust attention to medicines and fire‑related risks.

Staff delivered care informed by best practice and understood how to take a least restrictive approach.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once. The provider supported effective multidisciplinary working. There was strong evidence of partnership working with GP services, and staff acted proactively to support people to access health appointments, sometimes going beyond their usual remit to ensure people’s health needs were met.

Communication across teams was exceptional. Lessons learned from incidents were shared clearly during team meetings, and expectations about reporting were understood by staff.
Team meetings had clear notes and showed strong staff knowledge, including in specialist areas such as gifts and legacies.

The continuity of care was outstanding, with people supported by a small, consistent team. Staff had a minimum of three induction shifts before working independently, ensuring familiarity with people’s needs.

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. People were supported to improve or maintain their health. Staff worked proactively with GP practices and supported people to attend health appointments and act on medical advice.

Care plans focused on outcomes such as improving independence or sustaining existing abilities. The provider celebrated people achieving their goals and adjusted support plans where needed to promote positive progress.

People were supported to live in ways that worked for them; cultural and religious needs were identified and respected, including guidance for staff on how to support people during different religious observances.

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. Needs assessments and care plans were reviewed regularly, with changes documented and communicated to staff and families. The provider used review meetings with people and relatives to evaluate whether support continued to meet needs.

The provider demonstrated an ongoing commitment to continual improvement. The provider actively monitored working practices and outcomes to ensure effectiveness. Supervisions and appraisals discussed learning, reflective practice, and training needs, promoting continuous professional development.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider ensured care was delivered in line with consent and mental capacity requirements. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and signed to confirm consent where appropriate. Staff understood mental capacity responsibilities and completed assessments where needed.

Staff received adequate training. They understood what information they could share and how to maintain people’s rights and autonomy. Families also had access to daily notes where appropriate and agreed.