Call on Me 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 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 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.

People told us they were involved in their care plans, reviews and assessments in a method of communication appropriate for them, for one person this had been supported by staff virtually. One person told us they recently had a medicines review with their GP and they had been supported by staff with the review to ensure they understood what was being discussed. Also, people confirmed they were supported to read their care plans to ensure they were accurate, reflected their support needs and detailed how they wanted to be supported. For example, one person told us they visited the office to review their care plans and they had time to read them with someone providing support to ensure they understood and had the opportunity to ask questions.

Leaders told us how they worked with people, families and other professionals to ensure people’s support needs were identified and met, they were able to demonstrate how they identified changes to people’s needs and how they communicated these changes to staff. Staff we spoke to were also able to describe in detail people’s support needs and confirmed they were informed of any changes which meant they had up to date information on how to support the person.

Processes were in place to ensure leaders had effective oversight of the care people received. This included regular audits of people’s support plans by management and obtaining feedback from people who used the service. This was in part, facilitated by people’s keyworkers. All people had an allocated keyworker who they met with monthly and gave feedback on their views of the care they received. This meant people were involved in their care and support and able to feedback to a staff member they knew well and felt comfortable with.

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 included detailed information about their preferences and how to support them to achieve their goals. People confirmed they were involved in creating these plans and they reflected what mattered to them. For example, one person had been supported to attend regular appointments regarding their sexual health, keeping safe and relationships and the person gave feedback they felt positively about this.

Leaders were able to demonstrate a separation between the care people received and their rights as a tenant so people could live as independently as possible in their own homes. In addition, the model of care was in line with best practice guidance Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture and enabled people with autism and learning disabilities to live the life they chose.

Processes were in place to ensure people received monthly care reviews with their keyworker who was a staff member they knew and felt comfortable with. This process encouraged their involvement in the review. In addition, external professionals we spoke to told us people’s care included what mattered to them.

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.

People were positive about their experiences transitioning from educational settings into supported living. One person told us they had initially had concerns around getting used to different freedoms and less structure, but staff had supported them well with the transition. People confirmed they had met staff before the transition and had been involved in making decisions about their home including décor and layout.

Staff described how they supported people to access other professionals and services. Some people were on waiting lists and staff detailed how they sought regular updates on their progress.

The provider worked well with partners to ensure safe transitions between services. For example, the provider regularly attended the local college to share information and work with families prior to any transition. We received feedback from partners confirming this occurred. In addition, one professional told us, “The team worked well with [person’s] care plan and have fed back with any concerns and ideas how to improve care.” Another said, “They have only ever shown amazing joint working with all professionals.”

Processes were in place to ensure people only needed to tell their story once. This included person centred support plans with high level of detail for new staff to follow, and a one-page (PEN) profile for people to provide to other professionals if moving between services, for example any hospital admissions.

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.

People were positive about the support they received from staff and the provider to manage their health, care and wellbeing needs. People shared examples of the difference they had experienced to their health and wellbeing following the support they had received. This included one person being supported to manage their weight loss and another being supported with identifying changes in their mental health. People also confirmed they were involved in their care and support, which encouraged them to be independent and offered them choices, which they were supported to make.

Staff were able to describe how they identified signs of changes in people’s health and wellbeing and strategies they used to support people or how they escalated to relevant professionals. For example, one person experienced low moods, with staff they had identified approaches which were successful in supporting the person.

The provider was keen to empower people to lead on their care and support. They had implemented a new approach called ‘Outcome Star’ which involved people meeting regularly with a staff member to discuss their goals and if they were on track to achieve them. This was being appropriately rolled out across the service and people involved spoke positively about. This approach was person led and not time specific which meant people were in control of their care and support.

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 we spoke to told us of improvements in their wellbeing since living at the service. These included increased independence with household tasks and in the community, voluntary work placements in line with their likes and dislikes and people’s ability to set their own goals and actions to achieve positive outcomes.

Leaders and staff demonstrated how they supported people to set and achieve goals with regular meetings with individuals to monitor progress. This was confirmed by evidence reviewed during inspection and by external professionals. One professional told us, “I am aware they make every effort to support people entering the service,” another said, “I find staff and management to have a great knowledge and understanding of the people they support, to enable them [Person] to be the best at what they do.”

Processes were in place to monitor people’s support and outcomes with the person and escalate appropriately to external professionals. For example, when people’s allocated support hours needed to be reviewed and increased or decreased to continue to meet people’s needs. Some people have Talk Time sessions with a keyworker or house lead, other people prefer a more formal review where feedback is collected on a document, and some prefer a group setting. The provider was able to demonstrate people’s involvement in this process and people confirmed they were involved.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People confirmed they were involved in making decisions about their care, in care planning and were supported to understand their rights. People told us of decisions they had made and demonstrated their understanding of their right to make unwise decisions if they wanted to.

Staff described how they supported people to understand their rights and provided reassurance when needed if people lacked confidence in their understanding. People we spoke to confirmed this.

The provider had relevant policies in place which were available to staff on Consent and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments and best interest decisions had been completed where required which meant we were assured staff protected people’s human rights in line with the MCA.

MCA assessments were completed by the complex care manager. These were task specific, contained person centred information and outcomes were shared appropriately with relevant people. One professional said, “Management is very knowledgeable regarding the Mental Capacity Act and power of attorney. They are not averse to seeking and taking advice when appropriate.”