Partners in Care (Nottingham) 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 71 (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 ensured people received effective care by assessing and reviewing their health, wellbeing, communication, and care needs with them. People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service. Care plans were reviewed every three months. These reviews were meaningful and enabled staff to identify concerns or emerging risks so timely action could be taken. For example, a review identified one person required longer call times to meet their needs safely; this was shared with relevant professionals, supported by evidence from staff, and adjustments were made. Reviews involved the person and, where appropriate, family members or others who knew them well. This meant care and support remained accurate, reflective of people’s wishes, and responsive to their changing needs.

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.

Where required, staff used national good practice tools to guide their assessments and decision‑making. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was used to identify whether anyone was at risk of malnutrition. When the tool highlighted a concern, risk assessments and care plans were updated so appropriate measures could be put in place to manage and reduce the risk.

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.

Staff communicated well with each other and worked collaboratively to support people. Staff liaised effectively with external professionals when required, which helped coordinate care and promote positive outcomes. Although care plans were stored electronically, the registered manager also provided paper copies in people’s homes where consent had been obtained. This ensured essential information about people’s health and care needs was immediately available in an emergency. For example, if emergency services attended or a person required hospital admission, professionals could quickly access accurate details about their conditions, risks and support needs. This meant people received safer, more coordinated care during emergencies, and professionals had the information they needed to respond effectively.

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.

The registered manager supported people to access health care services when needed, including arranging and attending routine health appointments. Where people were unable to visit an optician, the registered manager arranged home visit appointments to ensure their needs were still met. One person told us, “Definitely [ support with healthcare visits], they [staff] take me to hospital and arrange it for me.” This meant people received timely, appropriate healthcare and did not miss essential checks or treatment due to mobility or access difficulties.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to drive continuous improvement. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent, and aligned with both clinical standards and people’s own expectations.

A number of systems were in place to monitor outcomes. Monthly care reviews were carried out, during which staff visited people to assess the support provided and identify any areas for improvement. Daily notes were also reviewed to identify any clinical concerns and ensure appropriate action was taken. All daily recording records were audited each month for monitoring and oversight. This meant people received care that was closely monitored, responsive to any changes, and continuously improved to maintain good outcomes.

The provider did tell people about their rights around consent, however where there was doubt around a person’s mental capacity to consent to care and treatment, the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had not always been applied and followed. Mental capacity assessments did not evidence that the 5 key principles of the act had been upheld, and best interest decisions had not always been completed in line with the legislation. The registered manager took action and told us they would review all the people who are deemed to lack capacity and follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.