Active Care Group Supported Services

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were generally good, and people’s feedback generally 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’s health and social care needs were assessed prior to being admitted to the service. Staff ensured people would fit into the social community of the service and that they were able to provide the expected service. This included individuals who were considering moving into the service visiting and meeting people who already lived there and staff. The provider tried to match staff with regular carers to ensure people felt at ease. For example, where a person wished to receive care only from certain staff members, the provider worked to adjust the staff roster to reflect this.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The provider did not always ensure staff were aware of national guidelines such as Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture (RSRCRC). Staff did not consistently involve people actively in creating goals which were regularly reviewed. This had also been identified by the provider’s own audit and we saw that there had been some improvements but further work was required to meaningfully review people’s goals and ambitions.

People were encouraged to be involved in their meal preparation and to make choices in relation to their nutrition. Whilst staff encouraged people, they respected people’s wishes should they choose not to engage. Information relating to people’s health was available in different formats to ensure people were able to understand this. For example, we saw information about constipation prevention which was available in different formats.

Where a person had purchased their own treatment, staff liaised with the nurse for people with a learning disability to ensure this was safe to use. We received mixed feedback from healthcare professionals in relation to 1 supported living service. Comments included, “I have found delays to emails sent and often need to send follow up emails for a response.” Another comment included, “There seems to be a boost in the service now since [managers] have been there.”

The provider generally 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.

Staff ensured referrals were sent to the relevant agencies to reduce the risk of delays in care and told us they worked well together. One member of staff told us, “[Management] passed on the information they know. [Manager] is my supervisor and he always pushes me. [Manager] likes to give us smart goals to achieve.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff generally supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care records showed that staff generally encouraged people to live healthier lives whilst respecting people’s choices. Staff supported people with their health appointments and ensured the information was available in a format that suited the individual. One healthcare professional commented, “Staff will always try to promote my advice to her, but she has free choice, so we have to respect that.”

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. Where people chose not to engage, staff encouraged them and informed healthcare professionals of people’s wishes.

People and their relatives told us staff did not always support people to follow up delayed appointments or support them to attend activities of their choice in 1 of the supported living services we visited. For example, where a person wished to visit the local community, there was not always a member of staff available who was able to drive them there. In the other 3 services, people told us staff appropriately supported them to monitor and improve outcomes.

Staff completed daily handovers to discuss people’s healthcare needs and any related monitoring. One member of staff told us in relation to a person’s health deteriorating, “We are liaising with the GP and [organise] best interests meetings to see what’s best for [person].”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and staff respected this when delivering person-centred care and treatment. One person told us, “I let the staff know what I want to do and they always do it. I book the taxis and everything and I keep in close contact about what’s required. They always provide the staff for what I want to do.”

Staff sought people’s consent prior to providing support and staff received training to understand the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. One member of staff told us, “Everyone to be deemed to have capacity unless proved otherwise. If the person lacks capacity, then we need to do a best interests meeting to see what is best for that person, [and involve an] independent advocate if that person does not have any relatives.”

Care records included information on people’s capacity around specific decisions. For example, staff undertook mental capacity assessments to establish if a person was able to administer their medicines independently.