Agathah 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,treatmentand support achieved good outcomes and promoteda good qualityof life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key questionrequires improvement. At thisassessmentthe rating hasremainedrequires improvement.This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care,wellbeingand communication needs with them.The provider could notevidencepre-assessmentsor initial assessments hadtookplace to understand people’s care needs. The registered manager told us the current service users started using the service as an emergency. The registered manager told us assessments were completed following the commencement of the service, but these could not beevidenced. Relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and checkedin with them to see if theywere satisfied with the care their familymembersreceived.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The provider told us they involved people as partners in their own care and support. However, documentation we reviewed did not always include people’s involvement and there was little evidence of people receiving evidence-based care and support. For example, care plans did notalwaysinclude people’s dietary preferences, nutritionalneedsor hydration status. Although, the relatives we spoke with told us the provider included them in decisions about their family member’s support.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.The provider had no staff meetings or opportunities for staff to engage and share information or discuss suggestions and ideas to improve people’s care and support.Daily notes were recorded of visits but often lacked detail. The provider had taken some action to address the quality of dailyrecords,but improvement was stillrequired.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence,choiceand control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.The provider supported people to access healthcare professionals asrequired. The provider confirmed there were no healthcare professionals working alongside the service at the time of this assessment.

The provider did not always routinelymonitorpeople’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive andconsistent, orthatthey met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.People’s care planning documentation was not always reflective of people’s needs and aspirations. Care plans did not always provide sufficient detail to ensure staff were able to recognise and respond to changing health needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.The registered manager was knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked in line with the guidance. Relatives told us they were involved in their family members care and felt staff gained consent before delivering care.