Select Choice Community Support 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

This is the first inspection for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The registered managers undertook detailed assessments of people’s health, social and broader needs before they began using the service. People were fully included in the process. Staff worked with external professionals when needed to ensure people got the right care and support.

Induction, training and supervision were well planned. Training was carried out by an accredited trainer and supervisions by experienced staff.

Care records were accurate, up to date and sufficiently detailed. Policies and procedures had regard to good practice and standards. People were supported to maintain and develop their independence, by staff who respected their rights.

Consent was evident but documentation regarding best interests decision making needed improvement.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed well. People felt fully involved in how their care package was designed and reviewed. Staff understood people’s needs well and were given the time to get to know these. Understanding and acting on people’s varied communication needs was a strength of the service.

External professionals had confidence in how well staff understood people. One told us, “Staff have a good knowledge of [person’s] needs, which are extensive and can alter daily. They know [person] well and [person] does respond in a positive way towards staff.”

People were able to feedback about their care through a range of means, including regular phone calls, email and face to face visits.

People and relatives had confidence in staff being able to meet their needs. The provider ensured staff made sufficiently detailed daily records so other staff or external professionals could rely on that information if needed.

Staff understood how to use the electronic care records systems effectively and were supported to do so. Where improvements needed to be made, the provider identified and supported with this.

Policies and procedures were informed by good practice and relevant legislation. They were regularly reviewed to ensure they were up to date and aligned to the provider’s ethos.

The provider had worked well with relatives and external professionals to ensure a continuity of care and to minimise the impacts of moving between services. Staff worked well with a range of external professionals to ensure people had access to the right advice and support.

Staff were respected and were evidently part of a well-functioning team. One staff member said, “My managers consider what I want and how they can suit my needs. Constant 1-to-1 supervision to be sure I am satisfied with my job and to talk through any other issues.”

The accessible and well-managed electronic care records system allowed for a prompt sharing of information when needed.

People enjoyed aspects of healthy living, such as trying healthy alternatives and taking up new hobbies. Staff encouraged people to complete their physio exercises where they had them, and more physical movement. They had a good understanding of people’s dietary needs and what options were healthy, and respected people’s choices.

People’s care was accurately and regularly monitored to ensure it was meeting their needs. The provider measured outcomes against what could be expected and sought advice if people’s outcomes weren’t as expected. People who used the service, and their relatives, told us people had experienced consistently positive health and wellbeing outcomes.

People felt assured that their care was well planned and co-ordinated. They told us this had a positive impact on their wellbeing and meant there were no anxieties around who was going to arrive to provide care. One relative said, “[Staff] got very early on that they needed to be consistent with [person] or they were going to go backwards. They’ve been consistent throughout and if the main carer for whatever reasons hasn’t been available the registered managers (who know [person] really well) have stepped in.”

The registered managers demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received training regarding the MCA and policies were in line with the principles of the MCA.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Staff sough consent at each care visit and people and families were involved in decisions about their care. Where the recording of these decisions needed improvement to make them more accessible and clear in terms of decision-making, the provider was responsive to our feedback.