B24 Healthcare Solution 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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider and deputy manager told us they carried out initial assessments on people’s needs before they commenced packages of care. However, we were unable to see how people and their relatives had been involved.

Some people and relatives told us they recalled being involved in initial assessments, but others could not recall this, telling us the service had been arranged by “The hospital or social services”. One relative told us, “My family member started the service about a month ago and we have been waiting for them to contact us to ask how things are going.”

Care plans did not show how people or their relatives had been involved in any review of their care needs.

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.

Care records showed a range of clinical tools were used to assess people’s needs and levels of risk to help improve people’s outcomes. For example, falls risk assessments had been completed and scored so mitigation could be put in place. A Waterlow assessment had been completed to determine people’s risk of skin damage to pressure areas.

The deputy manager told us they had ensured ‘catheter passports’ were in place where relevant and these were kept in the person’s home.

The service worked with health and social care professionals to ensure any guidance given was included in the person’s care plan records and followed by staff.

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.

During our inspection, we observed the provider, deputy manager and office staff team working well together. For example, we observed supportive practices, and sharing information with one another throughout the day.

Care staff told us they contacted health and social care services on behalf of people if needed or informed people’s relative of any concerns. Staff contacted GPs and district nurse teams if needed. One relative told us they had a ‘communication book’ and they were positive about how staff used this to update them on their loved one’s needs or any changes to their care.

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.

Staff had the information they needed to support people to live healthier lives. Care records included information about people’s health conditions and contact details for the appropriate healthcare professional, should the staff team need to contact them.

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.

The quality assurance staff member told us they reviewed people’s ‘daily notes’ on a weekly basis. This was to assess whether tasks had been completed and staff had followed directions to monitor people’s health and wellbeing to ensure people had good outcomes. Overall, daily notes showed staff were doing this. For example, some people had a catheter and staff were directed to monitor the colour and output of urine and record this. We found most of the time staff had done this. Staff told us they would report any concerns about a person’s catheter care to the district nurse team and to the management team.

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

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Staff understood the need for consent, for example, when administering medicines to people and supporting with personal care. Care records informed staff if people had mental capacity to make day to day decisions or not and when a Power of Attorney had been appointed.

The provider understood the importance of when a ‘best interests’ decision would be required. One person’s care plan contained a best interest decision related to the administration of their medicines and directed staff on how to support the person.