Calverton Supreme Home Care

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

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 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager had not always ensured that people’s care and treatment were consistently effective. People’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were not always fully assessed and reviewed in partnership with them. Although people were given regular opportunities to review and discuss their care, care plans did not always demonstrate that all aspects of their health and wellbeing had been thoroughly assessed. Care plan reviews were recorded, the registered manager told us their policy states care plan reviews are completed every 6–12 weeks; however, we found gaps in documentation. Some information within care plans had not always been completed or updated in line with the provider’s procedures, as also referenced in the Safe domain of this report. This meant staff did not always have clear, detailed written guidance to follow that reflected people’s needs and preferences.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Whilst people were involved in their care and support planning, the provider did not always ensure that evidence‑based care was consistently provided. For example, we found they had not always followed the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines to support the safe management of medicines, as cited within the Safe section of this report. This meant people were not consistently supported in line with evidence‑based best practice, increasing the risk that their care and treatment did not fully meet their needs or ensure their safety.

Staff told us that communication within the team was strong and that they worked collaboratively to support each other. One staff member said, “I think we are a good team and work really well together. We always support each other and help each other when needed. I’ve helped a team member grow their confidence and supported them when they didn't feel comfortable, by giving them extra training or shadowing them when needed.” Where needed information was shared with other professionals such as local authority safeguarding team. This meant people received coordinated care to ensure safe, effective, and consistent care that met their needs.

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

Staff understood their role in promoting people’s safety, wellbeing and involvement in their own healthcare. Staff supported people to attend health appointments to ensure their ongoing healthcare needs were met. One staff member told us, “I support a service user by going with them to hospital appointments. I help by booking a taxi, making sure they get into and out of the taxi safely, and making sure they are safe and understand what they are doing.” This meant people were supported to access healthcare services, maintain their wellbeing, and remain as independent as possible.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People told us that they were involved in care plan reviews; however, documentation did not always reflect this and care plans were not always updated or in place regarding people’s health conditions as stated within safe part of this report. This meant people were at risk of receiving incorrect care and supporting, placing them at risk of harm.

The provider did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. It requires that, wherever possible, people make their own decisions and are supported to do so when needed. When a person is assessed as lacking capacity, any decision made on their behalf must be in their best interests and be the least restrictive option.

We found that mental capacity assessments had not been completed. This meant people were at risk of decisions being made unlawfully or without proper legal justification. Where people were able to consent to their care, a record was completed during the pre‑admission assessment to show they had provided their consent.