Mobile Care Services Limited

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 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 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.

People were involved in their initial plan of care. We reviewed 1 person’s pre-admission assessment which reflected their involvement in their care planning and support needs. Where people had a learning disability and / or autism, their views had been sought in what support they needed.

The manager told us they had accepted a new package of care and care calls were due to commence on the day of our inspection. Some brief information had been shared with the service, but a staff member was due to visit this person ahead of their first care call to gain further detail so an initial plan of care could be put into place.

Some care staff told us about tasks they supported people with, such as catheter care for 1 person but the risk management in the person’s care plan referred to ‘no staff involvement’. This meant where a person's support needs may have changed, risk management was not always updated as needed. A lack of communication and care review meant care plans potentially were not always effectively updated when needed. We discussed this with the service manager who told us they would make checks to see if support needs had changed or not.

Improvements were needed in communication and reviewing people’s needs. For example, 1 person’s daily care notes referred to staff using a ‘wedge’ to support the person. However, there was no reference to this in their care plan or for staff on how to use the wedge. On checking with care staff, the manager said this piece of equipment had recently been put into place by community nurses, and action would be taken to add guidance to their care plan.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment using current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider and manager had recognised tools in place to assess and identify risks when providing people’s care and support. However, these were either not always completed fully, or reviewed when needed, by staff assessing people’s care needs. For example, a MUST assessment on 1 person’s nutritional needs was incomplete. This person’s WATERLOW assessment contained inaccurate information, and the action plan contained no guidance on what staff should be monitoring, which posed risks of avoidable harm to the person.

Staff told us about 1 person whose mobility support needs had changed over the past weeks. The staff member said, “[Name] is now only hoisted.” However, this person’s moving and handling assessment and falls risk assessment had not been reviewed and information about their hoist was not in their care plan to guide staff.

The manager and team leaders told us staff training and spot checks were behind, with not all staff being up to date with their training or refreshing their skills. The provider’s operations manager’s quality monitoring report confirmed this. This meant staff completing assessments and delivering care may not currently be as up to date with current best practice guidance as needed.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

We found some inconsistencies in care planning, risk management plans and information shared with staff. This meant staff did not always have the necessary information to provide consistent care and support to people. Some people told us they did not always have consistency in their care staff, which meant those staff may not know they well and may need to refer to their care plan for information which may not be available to them. One staff member told us, “I do relief work so work with different people all the time, I don’t really get to know individuals well.” This meant staff did not always have the information they needed to provide safe and effective care.

The manager told us a number of people were transferring their packages of care to a different provider, during February 2026, and they were working with them to share information about people’s care to ensure a smooth transition.

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.

Improvements were needed to ensure staff had the skills needed in food and drink preparation so as to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained. One person told us, “I asked the carer to get a jacket potato out of the freezer for my lunch and add baked beans, they served it cold to me.” Another person told us, “I asked for some toast, and it was served to me burnt black and covered in butter, I was upset and couldn’t eat it.”

People’s plans of care guided staff on how to promote their independence. For example, 1 person’s ‘About Me’ section informed staff, “I am able to put in my own dentures” and “Please assist me to dry myself.”

The manager told us they would liaise with other healthcare professionals when needed, such as GPs and the district nursing team. However, care plans often lacked this information where other healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care.

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.

Processes needed improvement to monitor people’s care and support effectively. Where people had damaged skin or were at risk of developing sore skin, records were not clear in what treatment they were receiving and what checks care staff should be carrying out. For those people cared for in bed, there was no guidance to staff about whether they should reposition the person and record which side the person was positioned on. We discussed this with the manager who agreed more detail was needed and staff would be asked to record this.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The manager and staff understood the importance of assuming people had mental capacity to make decisions about their care and support.

Overall, staff understood the importance of gaining consent from people before carrying out personal care. However, 1 person told us staff ‘just got on with it, without asking’. This did not cause concern to the person, but staff needed to be reminded about asking for consent and explaining what they were doing.