Arc Care

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 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 71 (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 their needs were assessed when they first started using the service first and staff had a good understanding of their needs. One person told us, “They came and asked what would you like us to do for you.”

Although some people said they didn't have access to their care plans others told us they had access, and the information was in their home in a folder. Leaders told us they always left a folder with the care plan in people’s homes. There was evidence of the provider completing regular reviews of people’s needs when things changed.

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. There was evidence of regular communication with professionals on behalf of people to ensure their needs were being met. For example, we viewed communication from the service to professionals such as, physiotherapists, pharmacies, district nurses and the GP. One relative told us about a situation when staff had identified their relative was seriously ill and contacted emergency services. The service had evidence-based information embedded into their care planning system. For example, we saw evidence of peoples diagnosed conditions in their care plans with guidance for staff to follow in line with national evidence-based guidance.

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 various partner agencies on their behalf. Staff told us most of the contact with partners were done through the main office and this was effective as it let them deal with their day-to-day job of supporting people. The manager told us they had good working relationships with partners in the community and knew who to refer to when needed and partners provided positive feedback. For example, one partner told us, “The service made a referral for a person whose mobility had declined, and staff were finding it difficult to mobilise them. The manager knew the person very well and we agreed to a joint visit which resulted in a positive outcome because we worked as a team. The manager followed up with emails and calls and kept everyone up to speed including the Social Worker, myself and Safeguarding.” The provider worked in partnership with another local provider who conducted quality reviews of the service, and they told us, “They are constantly sharing information with us and other professionals.”

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. One person told us, “They support [Person] by talking to them and providing food and drink, changing the catheter and walking around the garden, which makes them healthy. [Staff] encourage [Person] to mobilise and take fluids when it is hot.” One staff member told us, “I encourage people to mobilise and take their fluids, and I make sure one [Person] is not putting on heavy cardigans in the hot weather.” There was an example of where the service had worked with a service user who had not accessed a shower in a long period of time because they were afraid of falling. The service ensured the appropriate equipment was available for the person to access the shower and talked through the situation until the person felt safe. After the first time the person used the shower, they were ‘very pleased’ and felt safe to have a shower again.

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 told us they had been involved in setting up and reviewing their care plans. Leaders of the service updated care plans and risk assessments for people when their needs changed. Daily notes documented visits to people and information was captured in a concise way due to the electronic care planning system setting ‘tasks’ for staff to complete at each visit. This meant leaders were able to see each record from staff members to monitor the outcomes at each visit.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.For example, one service user had two Mental Capacity Assessments (MCAs) in place: one for medication administration and one for personal care. The MCA for medication administration stated the service user did not have an impairment of the mind or brain, while the MCA for personal care stated they did. Both MCAs stated the person could not retain the information long enough to weigh up the information to make a decision but was able to communicate the decision. This inconsistency meant the provider had not clearly established the service user’s capacity in line with Mental Capacity Act 2005 guidelines. When we brought this to the provider’s attention during the inspection, they acted promptly, amended the documentation and provided updated copies of the MCA.

However, people and their relatives told us staff asked for ongoing consent when they were supporting people with their personal care needs and staff demonstrated an understanding of how to obtain consent from people.