CareTech Community Services Limited - 82 Chaucer Road

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 inspection we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained Requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

People’s care plans were not always updated in a timely fashion when their needs changed. It was not always clear how people were being supported in line with best practice or to achieve their desired outcomes. However, the staff team worked well together, and people were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

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 and registered manager did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always make sure people’s current support needs were clearly recorded in their care plans. When people’s needs changed in relation to areas such as needing more support with their mobility or how they were feeling, their care plans and risk assessments were not updated to reflect this. We discussed this with the registered manager who started to update care plans during the inspection following our feedback.

When people started using the service they had a thorough assessment process to help make sure they could be supported in line with their preferences. This included overnight stays at the service and discussions with other people living at the service to make sure people would be happy living with each other. Staff told us they were able to get to know people before they started using the service and this enabled them to support them in ways they preferred from the start. We were shown evidence of how 1 person had been supported to start living at the service and it was clear they were happy and well supported. This had led to a positive experience for the person.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in line with evidence based best practice. For example, staff also had training about supporting people living with learning disabilities, however, were unable to explain what they had learned from this, or the impact it had for people and the way they were now supported. This was not being regularly discussed with the staff team. People were not being consistently supported to discuss how they wanted to be supported and try new things, which is an important part of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture (RSRCRC) and best practice. However the registered manager and staff team were passionate about supporting people as best as they could. They advocated for people by trying to make sure they has 1 to 1 hours for staff support and ensured they were always fully supported with any of their needs.Right Support. Right Care, Right Culture (RSRCRC) was audited at the service and there were notices around the service about this. One relative said, ‘‘I know the [registered manager and staff team] always try their best for [family member]. It can be quite tricky sometimes and it is a credit to them that [family member] is so happy.’’

Staff 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. Staff supported people to appointments with other professionals to help make sure they were supported in the best way possible. The staff team told us how they enjoyed working together and had built strong working relationships. They helped each other and shared information to help ensure people had good experiences. The registered manager was visible at the service and described themselves as ‘part of the staff team’. Staff told us this supported them and enabled them to work well together. One person said, ‘‘I think we [people and staff team] are all friends here.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘The staff team are like a big family at the service.’’

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. The way people needed to be supported to be healthy was not clear in their care plans and risk assessments and staff were not effectively recording how people were being supported to be healthy or the impact this was having. For example, 1 persons mobility needs had changed meaning staff had to support them in a specific way with their legs. This had been discussed with a health professional, however had not been fed back to staff effectively and had not been updated in the persons care plan. We observed staff did not support the person with this new support need as a result of this. This impacted the person’s ability to be supported to live healthily. We discussed this with the registered manager who took immediate action. However, we could not be sure this would have happened were it not for us bringing this to their attention during the inspection.

However, people were offered healthy food and drink choices and were supported in line with their dietary requirements. People were supported to exercise regularly if they chose to do so. One person said, ‘‘[Staff] take me to appointments. They come with me for walks.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I have no concerns about how staff support [family member]. They are living their best life.’’

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent. People’s care plans contained limited information about what outcomes people wanted to achieve or how they were being supported to achieve these. Sometimes, actions were taken to support people with health related outcomes, but were not shared with the staff team or updated in people’s care records.

However, staff worked well with people and understood how to support them on a day to day basis. For example, they supported people to be happy in their home environment and knew how to support people to make choices or feel better when they were upset. One person said, ‘‘I am happy here. It is good.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I think [family member] has gone from strength to strength at the service. Its good to see the person they are now compared to when they did not live at the service.’’

People were told about their rights around consent and staff respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Staff were trained in this and understood the principles of the act. They always asked people for consent before supporting them. Where people did not always have capacity, appropriate measures were taken to support them. 1 person was visibly happy when staff supported them to make choices about how they would spend their time. A relative told us, ‘‘[Family member] is kept as in control of how they are supported as much as they can be.’’