Chiron Care (UK) 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 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 63 (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. The provider told us people, families, staff and the relevant professionals were involved when assessing needs of people.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care records were detailed and reflected people’s individual health conditions and needs, however, we identified care records were not always up to date and did not always align to people’s current needs. For example, care records included information to monitor food and fluid intake for people. However, the provider told us they were not monitoring food and fluid intake. The provider told us they would review the care records. Care records did not state why bowels were being monitored or any actions staff should take. There was inconsistent information within the care records for a person in relation to the frequency of monitoring their weight as the care records stated, “Monitor weight on a 3 monthly basis” and also, “Monitor weight monthly.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The provider told us they worked with nurses, the community mental health team, social workers and the drug and alcohol team. Staff told us they communicated regularly with external partners, shared relevant information in a timely and respectful way, followed professional advice and the team co-ordinated and collaborated internally and with external partners to provide up-to-date information relating to people. Incident reports showed staff contacting the relevant professionals when support was required for people. Professionals told us the service communicated appropriately, reported incidents and informed them of any changes with people’s care needs.

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 told us if they needed to see the GP or other health professionals, they could ask for help from the staff, registered manager, social worker or other professionals for support.

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.

Care records did not always guide staff on next steps and actions to take. For example, where peoples care records noted there had been changes in weight and a blood pressure reading was recorded as “high”, there was not always clear guidance on how this was to be monitored in line with clinical expectations. Care records included information to monitor blood pressure, weight, bloods and bowels. However, the care records did not clarify which clinical guidance was being followed. However, a professional told us they had noted improvements in a person’s mental health and ability to support their emotions.

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 told us they were asked for consent before medicines were administered and personal care was carried out. However, the daily notes did not show consent had been obtained from people. We identified mental capacity assessments had been actioned for a person in relation to their care and support and the provider told us the person did not lack capacity in these areas. Therefore, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not followed.