Pro Healthcare Services

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 changed to 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 50 (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 told us they completed initial assessments which included gathering information from commissioners of care, people and relatives and visiting people. However, we did not see documented evidence of these assessments being completed by the provider. Initial assessments of needs provided had been completed between local authority professionals, people and relatives, and the provider was copy and pasting this information into people’s individual care plans. Lack of initial assessments which include a thorough review of people’s needs and preferences, can impact on the quality of person centred risk assessments and care plans which was an issue we found at this assessment.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care plans and risk assessments did not provide guidance in how to deliver safe care, including delegated clinical tasks was followed and care was always delivered as required. For example, there was insufficient evidence that catheter care was planned and delivered as required. Medicines were not managed in line with good practice guidance.

Staff demonstrated some knowledge of people’s needs and described working with external professionals such as district nurses.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about the support provided with nutrition.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

We found limited evidence of effective coordination with external professionals and relatives, and leaders were not always aware of key changes in people’s health or care needs. For example, the management team were unaware of incidents such as reasons for hospital admissions or changes in mobility for some people.

Communication within the service was inconsistent. People and relatives reported difficulty contacting the office and concerns not being followed up. A person said, “If you ring the office, they do not ring back.” Another said, “The management do not listen.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s experiences of support with nutrition, hydration and general wellbeing were mixed. Some received appropriate support, but others experienced poor or inconsistent care. Relatives described concerns about food preparation and nutrition, including inappropriate meals and food safety issues.

Care plans did not consistently include clear guidance on supporting healthier lives and lack of oversight meant opportunities to promote health were missed.

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.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve outcomes. Although audits of care plans and medicines were undertaken, care records were not consistently complete or accurate, limiting the provider’s ability to effectively evaluate care delivery and outcomes for people.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

There were policies and procedures in place in line with Mental Capacity Act (MCA) requirements. However, records did not always demonstrate that consent and decision-making processes had been appropriately assessed and documented. The registered manager and nominated individual’s understanding of how to apply the requirements of the mental capacity act was not robust.

Staff sought consent from people before care.