Plus Point Care 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

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 service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 38 (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 had not adequately addressed people’s needs.

Whilst people and their relatives told us they had been asked about their care needs at the onset of the package of care, we did not see evidence these needs were reflected in care plans, for staff to follow. We did not receive all care plans requested, but where we did receive them, people’s needs had not been safely addressed. For example, the care plan and risk assessments for a person who had a significant health concern, did not list details to guide staff on what that person’s signs and symptoms were, if they were becoming unwell due to this health condition. In addition, staff had not been given sufficient detail on action they should take to reduce the risk of ill health occurring.

As the training record showed staff had not received training in awareness of this health condition, care plans were particularly important to guide staff. The lack of detail to guide staff put people at risk of their needs not being supported effectively.

Staff told us care plans provided sufficient information to guide care, however, as outlined above for a person with a complex health need, we saw evidence this was not the case. We asked for additional evidence of care plans and risk assessments, but did not receive them, so we are not assured people’s needs had been adequately assessed.

The provider was not always aware of available guidance to enable them to plan and deliver people’s care and treatment, ensuring evidence-based good practice and standards were met.

Providers are asked to submit annual reports about their service to CQC. The last report the provider submitted showed they had used guidance about risk which was outdated. When on site, the provider talked about principles of the former guidance but did not demonstrate knowledge of new guidance. Additionally, the provider confirmed they were familiar with the name of the CQC guidance framework in place to support people with learning disabilities and autistic people, however, they did not provide evidence they understood this guidance.

The Provider told us about a recommendation in other guidance they had used to inform them on the best way to support a person. However, we did not receive the care plans and risk assessments for this person that we had requested, so we could not be assured this guidance had been implemented.

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

The provider and their staff team did not always work well together. The provider told us tasks would be assigned to other staff when necessary. However, when this was required in an urgent situation, information was not shared with the delegated staff in a timely way. This meant staff did not understand the expectations on them, and they were therefore unable to take action to ensure people’s safety, and this also meant stakeholders were not updated with required information in a timely way.

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 told us generally they were supported people to manage their health and wellbeing, but this was not always the case. Communication and emotional support were reported to have improved people’s wellbeing. Physical health improvements were also reported, and one person told us they had an improvement in their health when staff helped with their meals. However, there were some people who told us staff did not always listen well and there was not enough time. One staff said, “When time is tight, it can feel rushed”. This meant we could not be assured all people’s wellbeing was being supported.

As we requested additional care plans and were not provided with all required, we were not assured all people were supported to live healthier lives.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and their relatives told us they had not all received requests for feedback from the provider. Whilst we were told some feedback had been acted on, people also told us some issues, which had previously been shared, had not been actioned sufficiently. This meant improvements had not been made to ensure people’s care was a positive experience.

Feedback records we reviewed did not contain the date it was obtained. Therefore, we were not assured people’s expectations were being sufficiently monitored and that action had been taken to improve it.

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

People, their relatives and staff generally felt staff obtained people’s consent before they delivered care and support. There was a policy in place about consent, however, the training records showed not all staff had received the appropriate training in understanding capacity and consent. The provider told us they regularly checked staff gained consent correctly when the provider did a spot-check. Spot-checks are a direct review of staff’s performance in people’s homes. We asked for evidence of these checks and found not all staff had had them. This meant we were unable to be assured all staff were following the correct processes for obtaining consent.