Posa Care Solutions 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 requires 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 record people's involvement and their discussion about people’s health, care, well-being and communication needs.

The registered manager met with people to understand their care and support requirements and to ensure the service could meet their needs. People and their relatives reported being involved in the assessment of their care and support needs. One relative said, “Yes they did an assessment going all over his [person who used the service] needs”. Information about their personal and medical backgrounds were documented. However, detailed information about their preferences and goals or levels of independence were not clearly recorded in people’s care records.

The registered manager explained they were involved in the management and delivery of people’s care which enabled them to constantly review people’s needs and adapt the care being delivered accordingly. However, there was limited recorded evidence of amendments to people’s care plans and the dates of the changes. This meant the registered manager could not be assured that people’s care records were current, which placed people at risk of not receiving appropriate care to meet their needs, wishes or preferences.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The care plans of some people with specific needs such as dementia and catheter care did not reflect best practice guidance issued by The National Institute of Health and Social Care Excellence or the provider’s own policies for supporting people. This placed people at risk of receiving unsafe care.

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.

Whilst we found shortfalls in people’s care records, we found the service actively worked with people, their relatives and professionals to ensure continuity of care for people. Staff worked in partnership with other care agencies. One relative said, “The registered manager came to assess [name] and carried out a good assessment. They met [name] other carers, and I felt that there was a good handover between the private carer and Posa care staff. It works well.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Whilst staff supported people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support, there was limited recorded evidence of how staff had supported people to lead healthier lives. The registered manager and staff raised any concerns about people’s well-being and health to their relatives and contacted relevant health care professionals as required. However, there was limited records of the action taken to mitigate people’s risks whilst waiting for the health care professional’s assessment. People’s care records had not been reviewed and updated with the professional’s recommendations. For example, the recommendations made by the speech and language therapist about one person’s dietary requirements were not explicitly clear in their care records.

Staff knew people well and demonstrated a good understanding of a person’s needs, working closely with health care professionals such as GPs. They said they would contact the office for support or call the emergency services if they felt the person was unwell.

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. The registered manager worked closely with people to monitor their needs and outcomes. However, the registered manager recognised their monitoring and review systems needed to be strengthened and recorded to assist their oversight as the service expanded to ensure people’s care was being constantly reviewed and adjusted to meet their needs.

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

Staff told us they asked for people's consent before providing care to people and people reported their choices and decisions were respected. However, we found the registered manager had a limited understanding of their role to gain lawful consent when supporting people with a cognitive impairment. Where there were concerns about a person’s capacity to consent to the care being provided, an assessment of their mental capacity had not been completed by the provider to ensure any decisions made were in the person’s best interests in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and the provider’s policy.