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 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 67 (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 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 contained accurate information that reflected the care and support people needed and was relevant to their needs. For example, 1 person’s care plan had identified the person slept downstairs but in their risk assessment it stated staff were to support the person to their bed upstairs. The person had a medical condition that made using the stairs difficult and painful. The care plan had been reviewed and updated by the registered manager within the last 2 months, but this detail had been missed.

People and relatives told us staff knew how to support people in line with their individual preferences. One relative told us, “I cannot complain, the staff are very good and make [person] laugh, I hear them giggling which is lovely to hear.”

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] will visit or phone me and go through [person] 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.

People at risk of developing sore skin had a completed the Waterlow assessment tool identifying the level of risk posed to them. 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.

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. One relative told us the provider had helped to make a referral to their loved one’s GP for a speech and language therapist (SALT) referral because they were at high risk of choking.

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.

All staff we spoke with accessed the information they needed about a person’s care through the provider’s ‘App’. The App is a specialised program that is 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 if they wanted. One staff member told us a person’s relative accessed their App checking on [person’s] 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 people and their family to support people’s health and social and emotional wellbeing. We saw a few people were supported by staff to attend their weekly place of worship. Another person received guidance on how to eat a healthy diet to support the management of their medical condition.

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 asthma and allergic reactions.

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. However, we found that after reviews care plans were not always reflective of people’s immediate care needs. For example, the issues identified with the accuracy of care plans and risk assessments at this assessment had not been picked up in the provider’s own reviews which had been completed in the last 2 months.

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, aside from the Waterlow assessment tool, 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 maintaining attendance to weekly prayers.

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. The registered manager told us they would make this a priority for staff to complete this 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). Not all staff had completed their mental capacity training, however, 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 always ask [person] first what they would like me to do for them.”

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.