Kaedi Recruitment Agency 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 inspection 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 75 (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 management team completed assessments of people before people moved into the shared house. Assessments were carried out to determine if the service was suitable for them and they had the staff with the skills in place to meet their needs.People were admitted following referrals from the local authority, with initial information provided to ensure safety concerns were assessed. The registered manager or deputy manager completed comprehensive assessments of need, including people’s mental health, and risks associated with nutrition, hydration and socialising and communication. These assessments informed personalised care plans that clearly set out outcomes, risks and agreed approaches to support. The provider ensured plans were in place should people’s mental health needs deteriorate. This included determining triggers which could lead to negative changes in people’s demeanour and wellbeing.

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.

People's care plans detailed the care they needed based on their identified needs. Managers worked with local social care professionals to ensure support was provided in line with assessed needs. People received effective care in line with what mattered to them that followed best practice guidance. Staff were trained, competent and used evidence‑based approaches.

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.

There was a collaborative approach to planning and coordinating people’s care and treatment. Staff worked well together and communication within the team was effective, which supported the continuity of people’s care. A relative said the staff team were consistent and worked well together.

The provider demonstrated strong multi‑disciplinary working, particularly in supporting people with complex mental health needs. Staff told us they worked closely with local authority commissioners, adult social care, mental health coordinators, the Home Treatment Team and community mental health services. One staff member said, “I always email the mental health teams and coordinators so everyone knows what is happening and nothing is missed.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, increase their levels of independence such as completing everyday tasks to maintain their daily living skills. This helped to reduce their future needs for care and support.

Records showed staff supported people to maintain their health, wellbeing and nutrition. People received help with meal preparation and shopping. Staff described supporting people to remain active, including walking, exercise, socialising or going outside where possible.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and relatives felt the service helped their family members in their day to day lives. A person said, “The carers seem well trained.” People were supported to maintain their care routines and maximise their health, independence and wellbeing. People’s progress towards independence was also monitored. Records showed staff supported people to develop daily living skills, access community activities and manage finances where appropriate. For example, one person was supported to apply for their driving licence, manage personal allowances and work towards longer‑term goals such as living on their own. We noted that shortly after our inspection a person successfully found a place of their own which meant they could move on to more independent living.

The provider informed people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff told us they asked for people's consent at all times before providing them with support. People’s capacity to make decisions about their care was assessed. Staff were knowledgeable of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). They described clear consent processes, such as knocking on people’s doors, explaining tasks, giving people time and space, and encouraging choice.

People living at the service were not subject to restrictions. Staff explained this was because people were assessed as having capacity and valued their freedom. Staff recognised that although the level of risk could be high, people had capacity to make decisions that may put their health at risk or was not in their best interest. Staff respected these decisions while putting proportionate risk management measures in place. People were supported to make informed choices about their lives. They could choose what they wanted to do, for example, going out into the local town or visiting family and friends. People could also receive visitors, as long as it was safe for them. Staff respected their choices while maintaining regular contact with people, carrying out welfare checks, and implementing clear escalation plans.