Enliven Social Care 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.

This is the first assessment 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.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People using the service and their relatives told us they had been involved in the assessments of their needs and care planning. People were asked about what they would like to achieve and the ways in which they preferred to receive care and support.

Relatives told us, “[Person’s] needs were reviewed again in July last year (2025) when they became very unsteady on their feet; they could no longer stand to transfer or even roll on the bed to be hoisted. There is now a hospital bed in place and they are cared for in bed so care has changed accordingly.” Another relatives said, “I have been given full access to [family members] care plan notes and all the relevant paperwork is up to date."

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence based good practice and standards.

People’s records provided guidance as to people’s dietary needs. People and their relatives raised no concerns around the management of this task. One person told us, “Before they (carers) go, they check I have everything I need; make sure my lifeline is on and I have a snack handy.” One relative said, “The carers know to keep an eye on food dates in the fridge and have already asked for permission to throw anything away that isn’t edible or might be unsafe.”

Staff told us they followed people’s care plans, giving people choice of how their care was delivered.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People and their relatives felt the service worked well when sharing information with family and external agencies. One person told us “They (carers) are very good as I have a (medical device) in, but they know I get anxious so are very reassuring. There have been a couple of times (medical device) has come out and they (carer) have phoned the district nurse who arrives to sort it out.” One relative told us, “One of the carers had concerns about [Person’s medical condition] they got straight on to me and we discussed the way forward.” Another relative told us the carers had noticed a health concern with their family member and organised a medical professional to visit.

The registered manager told us they had positive relationships with health and social care professionals. Where they had concerns, these were directed to the health professional such as district nurses. We saw appropriate referrals had been made when required.

One external professional shared very positive feedback about the provider and said and they worked well and always sought and followed advice and guidance when needed.

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.

People’s relatives confirmed staff supported people as much as possible to manage their own health and wellbeing this included advocating on their behalf with the GP. One person said, “About 4 months ago, the carer spotted a rash, so they sent a photo to the GP (with my permission) and now I have [medication] applied daily.” Another relative shared an example of how staff supported their family members wellbeing through exercise. One relative said, “[Person] used to be very active before their dementia and there is an exercise bike in the house. One of the carers encouraged [Person] to use it by getting them to show the carer how to do it properly.”

Some people were supported to achieve their goals. For example, we saw 2 people were supported to go swimming.

The registered manager told us and records showed they had referred people to appropriate health professionals such as dietitians and GP’s when people had expressed changes they wished to make with their diet such as for instance healthier choices.

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 andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People had monitoring charts in place where this was an identified need. For example, one person had a Catheter, staff had been recording the urine output. However other areas of monitoring required some improvements such as when people were at risk of weight loss and had food and fluid charts in place. Staff had not always recorded the total amounts of food and fluids consumed and therefore were unable to undertake this monitoring effectively.

Staff we had spoken to said care plans contained enough information to know people’s needs and how care should be provided.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent.

People’s capacity to make their own decisions had been considered. However, mental capacity assessments (MCA’s) were not always in place where a person lacked capacity. Some MCA’s we reviewed contained limited information about how people had been supported to understand the decision to be made. There was a lack of evidence to show best interest decisions had been made for people. For example, in relation to the administration of medicines covertly (disguised) in food or drinks.

However, we found people told us they were involved in making day to day decisions about their care.

Staff had completed training in MCA and demonstrated a good understanding of respecting people’s wishes and decisions this included when a person lacked mental capacity.