Logic Care Solutions

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.This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Assessments were carried out before people started to receive a service from Logic Care Solutions. These assessments were used to develop the person’s care plans and make the decisions about the staffing hours and skills needed to support the person and it included information about what people could do for themselves. However, when people’s needs changed, assessments were not always updated and amended in a timely manner. This meant staff did not always have up to date and relevant information about people’s care and support needs. Some staff confirmed changes were not made in a timely manner despite them frequently reporting changes to the management team.

People could not recall if they had been involved in their assessments and care planning processes. A relative said, “I had seen the care plan at the beginning when the boss came over but I can’t remember it in detail as this was years ago. A copy of it is somewhere in the house and you can access it if I needed it. I’ve seen the manager a few times, so I expect it gets reviewed.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Most people were provided with care and support which met their needs and expectations. People told us they were supported to have a shower and hair washes when they wanted them. A person did not feel their care and support met their needs and expectations as the staff were not coming at a time that was convenient for them. They were asleep when staff visited.

People’s care plans showed the times they would like their care and support. The call monitoring data reviewed as part of the assessment, showed a wide variation of times that people actually got their care and support. On the day of our site visit to the service, a person’s relative contacted the office to report that staff had not arrived. The registered manager looked into what had happened and found that the visit had been added to a staff members rota and their app had not updated to tell them an extra call had been added. This resulted in the missed call and the relative providing care and support themselves.

When people had support with preparing and cooking food, the food provided was purchased by relatives and cooked by staff. People were making food choices. A person said, “They help with my food choices and give me options.”

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. The provider told us that they shared information about health concerns with relevant healthcare professionals and with relatives. A staff member said, “I noticed yesterday that [person] had a sore that was weeping on her leg. The manager has informed her son who is taking this forward.”

The staff team worked well together. Staff told us, “We have a meeting every Monday to discuss clients, we had a physical meeting once since joining. They discuss changes, update after families add information and this can be fed through the group chat if we need to know sooner” and “Communication is very important. We get on very well. Clients are our number 1 priority.”

However, a relative was negative about the team working at the service. They told us,

“The communication between carers and [registered manager’s] messages to them of expectations and needs is not always followed through by the care staff. I have found some of the carers to be a little sharp and inflexible and abrupt at times which has upset my parent. Others are resilient, patient and calm but in unison they are not consistent. It is difficult to liaise with them as the main carer about [my] parents’ needs as the care staff do not read any of my notes left or if they do they do their own thing despite [registered manager] also giving them direction and instructions.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff could tell us how they would access additional support from healthcare professionals to help people manage their health, should they be required. The management team gave us examples of when they had made contact with people’s GP or the district nursing service when people had become unwell. A staff member said, “If medical help is needed, the manager gets help.” A person told us the service had contacted an occupational therapist who visited them.

Records showed that staff had received training to support people with their specific health or lifelong conditions, such as stoma care and dementia. Records showed staff had not undertaken training in diabetes even though they supported people who had diabetes. The provider advised they would address this, staff confirmed that diabetes training was added to their training requirements after our visit.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The provider carried out monthly informal telephone monitoring reviews of the service to check that people were happy with their care. We could see that adjustments had been made to care and support in relation to the feedback. People’s relatives were able to review care records, and we viewed comments made by relatives which had prompted changes to call times or care plans.

Complaints about the service had been received and actions had been taken to address the concerns. A person said, “My husband has contacted them regarding a query, this was dealt with very promptly to our satisfaction.” Compliments about the service were not routinely recorded, however we did listen to a voicemail note that a relative had made complimenting the staff. A local authority care manager had emailed the service after they had reviewed a person. They shared, ‘[Person] speaks very highly of the carers and is very grateful for the support, care and compassion that she has received.’ People and their relatives told us, “I have not had any concerns. If I did have a worry or concern, I trust that she would deal with it” and “I have never had a complaint or issue, but if I ring with a query, they respond quickly, and my request is dealt with to my satisfaction.” A health and social care professional said, “‘I have always found Logic Care Solutions good to work alongside, they are good at maintaining contact to keep me updated with any client needs or changes I am involved with.”

Supervisions and spot checks had taken place frequently; staff were provided with an opportunity to discuss any concerns they may have about people’s care or how it could be improved. Staff told us they had a weekly meeting to discuss important information and any concerns. A member of staff told us, “We also have group supervision, we did one last month. We do it in 2 groups and discuss cases and concerns. We get good feedback when we work together.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA. We found that 1 person was being deprived of their liberty and was being locked in their premises. There was nothing in place to demonstrate a MCA assessment had been completed along with best interest decision making with relevant persons. The provider had sent an email to the local authority to seek guidance, but nothing was recorded in the person’s care plan and risk assessments.

People told us they made choices and day to day decisions about their lives. A person told us, “We make our own choices and decisions about care and food.” A relative said, “Most of the time she makes her own decisions, like when she wants food and when she doesn’t. Most days she makes her own decisions but some days she is not good at that. I would tell the carers what to do.”

People’s care records evidenced that staff respected people’s choices and decisions. A staff member said, “I promote independence, I put myself in their shoes as we are in their own home. I try to encourage them to make their own decision.” Another staff member said, “Some have limited capacity, we still respect their choices.” Other staff shared how they offer different choices of food or different clothes by showing items to people to help them choose.