Academy Homecare 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 good. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.
 

This service scored 50 (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 treatment were effective because, while they discussed people’s needs with relatives, this did not always result in people’s care plans, risk assessments and daily care records containing clear and adequate information.

Care plans did not always contain relevant information about people’s health, care or wellbeing needs to adequately support staff in providing safe and effective care. For example, where people had identified health and behavioural needs, they did not always have a care plan or assessment which adequately provide guidance to staff on how they could support people to meet these needs. This meant people were at risk of their needs not being clearly known and delivered by staff.

People and relatives told us they were involved in their care planning. The provider described the care planning process during the transition of people receiving support from the service, which included people and relatives being involved in assessments and this information being used to develop people’s care plans.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment, in a way which was important to them.

Evidence-based assessment tools were not always in place to identify risks to people’s health needs. For example, good practice assessment tools had not been used for people with skin integrity needs. This meant care plans did not always provide detailed, evidence-based information, which meant people were at risk of their needs not being identified, planned and managed by staff in line with evidence-based approaches.

The information within people’s daily care notes records included references to being based on the advice of from external healthcare professionals, such as nurses.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of people’s preferences, including how they asked for food and drinks, and relatives said staff supported their relation to access amenities within their communities.
 

The provider did not always work well across teams to support people.

Staff meetings did not take place on a regular basis; however, staff told us the provider communicated with them well via a team group chat.

While the provider worked in consultation with some external services, opportunities for greater multidisciplinary working were sometimes missed.
 

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

People’s care records did not always contain relevant information needed to ensure people could be supported to positively manage their health and wellbeing. We found relevant
guidance relating to people’s health conditions and needs did not contain the guidance staff needed so they could support people to live healthy lives. For example, a person living with a skin condition which affected how they were able to mobilise, did not have a care plan in place to direct staff how to support them with this area of their care. This meant people were at risk of their health needs not always being met.

Where this was possible, people were supported to manage aspects of their own health and wellbeing needs. Staff received training relevant to people’s health needs, and the staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of people’s health needs. For example, staff told us how they supported people with their mobility and physical health needs which mitigated challenges and risks associated with this. This was supported by the feedback we received from people and relatives.
 

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.

People’s care records were not effectively monitored and reviewed by the provider. With an absence of effective care plan and limited safety events audits, while following a recent local authority visit had resulted in the provider being aware they needed to make improvements to people’s care plans, they were unaware of some of the specific concerns we identified regarding the lack of relevant information in people’s care records and people’s care and health outcomes. This meant there was a risk the care and treatment people received from staff may not always meet their needs.

While this was not carried out on a consistent basis, people’s care was monitored by the provider undertaking visits of people’s homes and telephone calls to people and relatives to assess staff practice and to seek people’s and relative’s feedback.
 

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The service did not always consider the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when supporting people. The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. When people lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

We found mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not in place for people who were believed as lacking capacity. This meant people were at risk of their rights under the MCA not being respected.

Staff training records showed staff received MCA training and staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of seeking consent from people. This was supported by people and relatives, with 1 person saying, “Carers check I am happy to have them there and assist them before supporting me with things.”