Caring@Home 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 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 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 ensured people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and regularly reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs in partnership with them.

Care plans contained detailed information about people’s needs, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported. People told us they were actively involved in decision‑making and reviews. One person said, “Before any changes are even thought of, we’re always consulted."

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in partnership with them, taking into account what was important to them. Care was delivered in line with relevant legislation, current guidance, and evidence-based good practice.

We saw that recognised assessment tools were used within people’s records where a need had been identified. These included the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), which is used to assess the risk of malnutrition, and the Waterlow score, used to identify a person’s risk of developing pressure ulcers.

One person told us, “When the office ring they always ask, ‘how are you’. They seem really invested in my wellbeing and how they can help. I’m in regular contact with the team manager by email. The care manager comes to visit every few months.”

The provider worked effectively with other teams and services to support people. They shared assessments and relevant information when people moved between services, helping to ensure people did not need to repeat their story.

The nominated individual told us they had effective working relationships with external professionals and maintained regular communication with community teams, including occupational therapists (OTs) and district nursing teams.

Staff reported good levels of peer and management support and effective communication within the service.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways that maximised their independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and, where possible, worked to reduce future care and support needs.

Care plans and supporting documentation showed that staff had clear guidance in place to support and monitor people’s nutritional needs. This included advice on planning balanced meals and offering healthier alternatives in line with people’s individual preferences. Staff had also completed healthy lifestyle training as part of their diabetes awareness training.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to ensure outcomes were improved and that care met clinical expectations.

We reviewed epilepsy care plans and emergency management documentation, which set out what a seizure may look like, and the actions staff should take in response. However, the information provided to staff was not aligned with NICE guidance.

The epilepsy care plans showed inconsistencies in the recorded response timeframes. One assessment completed in 2024 identified a response threshold of 10 minutes, while a subsequent assessment completed in March 2026 recorded a threshold of 9 minutes. These timeframes were not aligned with national guidance and provided limited assurance that staff would respond appropriately and promptly in an emergency.

Although the care plan had been reviewed and updated, the guidance it contained had not been reviewed in line with the requirement for annual review and was not consistent with NICE guidelines, which state that resuscitation and immediate emergency treatment should be provided for children, young people, and adults who have convulsive status epilepticus (seizures lasting 5 minutes or more).

This increased the risk that staff may not act in a timely or appropriate manner during a prolonged seizure. However, at the time of the inspection, we saw evidence that staff had responded appropriately in emergency situations, and there was no evidence to suggest this had resulted in harm or a negative impact on the person using the service.

The provider did not consistently ensure that people were informed of their rights regarding consent, or that these rights were respected when delivering care and treatment.

For example, we saw that one person had a Mental Capacity Assessment (MCA) and a Best Interests (BI) decision in place in relation to the administration of medicines. However, for another person, there were no documented mental capacity assessments or best‑interest decision-making records for key areas, including consent to care, financial arrangements, and other restrictions in place.

Practice was not always in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This meant the provider could not be assured that decisions were made lawfully, appropriately, or in the person’s best interests, placing people at risk of having their rights restricted without proper assessment or safeguards.

However, staff spoken with during the inspection demonstrated a good understanding of the need to obtain consent and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. They told us they had received relevant training to support this.