Vitality Plus Care 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Although people’s needs had been assessed, this information was not always fully reflected in their care plans and risk assessments, as we identified some inconsistencies. Care plans also lacked detail for people living with dementia, particularly regarding how their diagnosis affected them day‑to‑day. In addition, life history information was missing for people with dementia, which limited staff’s knowledge on how to engage with them in a positive and meaningful way.

However, people told us their needs had been assessed before support began. Care plans were now being developed prior to the start of care, and staff said they were provided with relevant information about people’s needs before delivering support.

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

We received mixed feedback about care plan reviews. Some people told us their care plans were reviewed regularly, while others reported delays. One person said, “My care plan is being reviewed, and this is the first time since it was done with me about 18 months ago.”

The provider used the 'Waterlow' tool to assess the risk of skin integrity concerns. However, we identified one person’s assessed risk was incorrect due to the tool not being used effectively. Key information, such as the individual’s height, weight, and diagnosed conditions, had not been recorded. Without this information, the provider could not accurately assess the person’s risk. The provider confirmed they would revisit how the tool was being applied to ensure it was used correctly.

However, the provider had evidence‑based tools embedded within the care planning system to help identify people’s needs. In some cases, these were used effectively and captured appropriate information. We also saw evidence of regular communication with healthcare professionals such as GPs, district nurses, and occupational therapists to ensure people’s needs were met.

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 and their relatives told us the service contacted relevant partner agencies on their behalf when needed. Staff explained that most communication with external partners was coordinated through the main office, which they felt worked well and allowed them to focus on their day‑to‑day support duties. The registered manager told us they had positive working relationships with partner organisations and demonstrated a clear understanding of referral pathways.

One partner told us, “The manager was nice, polite and kind, and gave me the initial information when I requested it.”

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’s health conditions were recorded and told us staff worked with them to provide the care needed. Staff received regular training which was updated to make sure staff had knowledge on various health conditions.

Partner agencies did not raise concerns about how the service supported people. We saw evidence of the provider helping people access external healthcare services when needed.

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.

Monitoring systems were embedded within the care‑planning system, enabling the provider to track people’s outcomes effectively. For example, each visit included clearly defined tasks that staff were required to complete and record. We also saw evidence that staff monitored and documented blood sugar levels for people with diabetes in their daily notes.

For people at risk of dehydration or those using a catheter, daily fluid intake and output records were maintained. Additionally, staff completed daily skin checks for individuals identified as being at risk of pressure wounds, and these were appropriately documented.

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

During the on-site assessment, the registered manager told us that no people lacking capacity were being supported at that time. However, we reviewed one care plan which indicated that a person lacked capacity in several areas. We identified there were no specific capacity assessments in place to determine whether the person had capacity or not in specific decisions, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). MCA guidance requires providers to assess a person’s decision‑making capacity to determine whether they can give informed consent to aspects of their care, such as personal care or medicines support. The registered manager confirmed they would review people’s capacity in accordance with the MCA Code of Practice.

Consent forms were available for people to record their consent to care and treatment, and these were completed either by the person themselves or by a family member. However, we identified one form where a family member had signed both to confirm that the person had capacity and also to indicate the person did not have capacity to consent to care and treatment. This inconsistency meant that the person’s decision‑making ability had not been clearly established, creating a risk that care and treatment may not have been delivered in line with their consent preferences. The providers January audit had identified the need to review consent processes, but this had not been completed at the time of the assessment.

However, staff demonstrated an awareness of the MCA and were able to describe how they supported people in line with its principles. People told us staff generally sought their consent before providing care and support, and staff showed a clear understanding of how to obtain consent appropriately.