Supportive Care Services 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.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

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 provider’s assessments of people’s needs were not effective because they did not always accurately reflect people’s health and care needs.

The care plans considered people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs and people and their relatives were confident that individual needs had been appropriately assessed. However, improvements were needed to ensure care plans were easy to follow, contained accurate information that reflected the care and support being delivered by staff and remained relevant and up to date. For example, 1 person’s care plan had identified the person wanted their feet to be monitored by staff. There was no separate care plan or risk assessment to show this had been considered as part of the person’s overall care and support needs.

People and relatives told us staff knew how to support people in line with their individual preferences. One relative told us, “Staff are very kind and make [person] feel valued because they tend to feel isolated and lonely when they are ill and they see the staff as friends.”

People and relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes and felt fully involved in assessments and reassessments of their care and support. One relative said, “[Registered manager] has visited and gone through the care plan.”

The provider did not deliver care in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Two people at risk of developing sore skin required support to reposition themselves to reduce the risk of pressure damage to their skin. The use of the Waterlow assessment tool was not practiced by staff. The Waterlow assessment isa nationally recognised tool used pressure ulcer risk assessment tool, which helps healthcare providers identify individuals at risk of developing pressure ulcers by scoring various risk factors like body build, skin condition, mobility, and continence.The total score indicates the level of risk. Without this knowledge or tool to refer to, the risk to people increased because staff may not know what or how to implement preventive measures and develop tailored care plans to avoid complications for people. We were not assured that staff had received the training that would equip them to be able to deliver evidence based care and treatment.

Some people had regular input from visiting health care professionals. Staff told us they had updates about people’s health and support needs through team meetings, supervision and/or spot checks.

Everyone we spoke with told us the provider and their staff delivered good care and support to them.

The provider worked with other health and social care teams and services to support people.

Staff were positive about their working relationships with the provider, family members and the people they supported. One staff member said, “The managers are good at communicating with us. We all speak with each other very well.”

Another staff member explained how they accessed the information they needed about a person’s care through the App. The App is a specialised program that's loaded onto a mobile device or laptop that can be accessed by staff when completing their daily tasks. People and relatives also had access to the App and 1 relative shared with us how useful they found this when it came to checking on [person] support.

People and relatives told us communication with the provider and their staff was good and felt comfortable in raising any concerns or issues as they arose.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives.

Staff told us how they worked with the person and their family to support people’s health and social and emotional wellbeing. We were told by 1 family member the provider had arranged for a health review of their loved one’s support with a social care agency. Another person said the provider had supported them to visit their place of worship.

A relative shared with us the positive impact the provider and their staff had on their loved one. They told us, “[Person] is taken to the park or the library and into the city and that makes them very happy.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Some care plans lacked guidance for staff, regarding specific health and medical needs associated with their care such as epilepsy, diabetes management and pressure care.

The provider and their staff supported people with their daily lives to maintain their health and wellbeing. Care plans referenced monitoring healthcare needs but there were no clinical monitoring tools used by staff to evidence action had been taken to improve outcomes for people.

People and relatives told us the staff that supported them understood their care and support needs and their input had helped to maintain their independence and achieved positive outcomes, such as accessing public spaces within the wider community.

People and relatives told us the registered manager met with them to discuss their care and support to make sure care plans were relevant and being followed. One person said, “I am happy with my carers. I have no complaints.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and staff respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, out of 18 care staff only 1 had completed their mental capacity training.

Care plans considered people’s capacity and their ability to consent to their care and make decisions about the support needed. This meant the service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). While staff may not have completed their mental capacity training, they understood the importance of gaining consent from people and encouraging people to make their own decisions about their care and support. One staff member told us, “I ask [person] what they need to do and sometimes they may get out of bed, or they’ll say I stay in bed. I always ask the [person].”

People and their relatives felt their views and wishes had been considered when care and support was being planned. People told us staff always sought their consent before delivering care. Relatives told us they were very much involved in supporting people with making decisions about their care where appropriate.