CFT 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.

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.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to person-centred care and consent to care.
 

This service scored 46 (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 support was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The provider had completed an initial assessment of people’s needs and this information was used to develop their care plans. However, it was not always clear from people’s care plans how they had been involved in reviewing their care. The provider could not always demonstrate how people’s views and opinions were captured, respected, listened to and implemented as part of their day-to-day support.

People’s care was not consistently delivered in line with ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidelines. For example, people’s care records did not always evidence person-centred care planning. The provider was not always able to demonstrate how people were supported to explore meaningful activities, learn new skills or have good access to local communities.

We received mixed feedback about how well people’s nutritional needs were being met, with some relatives identifying a lack of planning and support to ensure people were offered a wide range of healthy and nutritious meals.
 

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. We received mixed feedback from health professionals about how well the provider worked with them to promote good outcomes for people. Whilst some positive examples were given around regular meetings and updates, some concerns were raised around inconsistent, poor communication and record keeping.

The provider did not consistently support people to manage their health and wellbeing and maximise their independence, choice and control. Whilst people’s health needs were identified and recorded in their care plans, they did not always provide sufficient detail about how to promote people’s choice or involve them in making decisions about their health and wellbeing.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives about how well staff supported people to understand and make healthy lifestyle choices. We also received mixed feedback about how well people’s relatives were kept updated about health appointments and check-ups. One relative told us, “I am informed about healthcare appointments”. However, another relative said, “I didn’t know anything about [person’s] appointment. I would have liked to be informed.”

The provider did not demonstrate a consistent approach to monitoring people’s care and support to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent and met the expectations of people themselves.

Whilst we found some people had care plans in place which included information about what was important to them and what they wanted to achieve, we found other people did not. We found some people’s care plans did not provide any details about their aspirations or how to support them to achieve meaningful outcomes.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about how well people were supported to plan meaningful activities and how involved they were in monitoring and reviewing care provided. Whilst 1 relative told us, “I attend the care reviews”, another relative said, “I’m not involved in any review meetings.”
 

The provider was not able to demonstrate how they had considered people’s capacity to consent or supported people to make their own decisions about their care.

At the time of the inspection, people did not always have detailed, decision specific capacity assessments in place. Where assessments were in place, we found they did not consistently evidence how people’s communication needs had been considered or who else was involved in the assessment process.

The provider had identified the shortfalls in their mental capacity assessment processes and were implementing more detailed assessment forms. However, at the time of the inspection, these improvements were not embedded.