Sparrow Health 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. This is the first assessment for this 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to management and oversight and how best practice guidance was implemented.

This service scored 54 (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 was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The provider carried out assessments of people’s needs prior to their support starting. However, these lacked detail in some areas regarding how people wanted to receive their support. This included details regarding the support people needed with their mental health, anxiety and mobility. One professional told us they believed more detailed assessments were required to ensure staff had the skills required to support people with complex needs effectively. The provider acknowledged that more robust assessments were needed to ensure people received the support they needed as the service expanded in size.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Support provided was not always in line with current best practice. The provider and management team had limited awareness of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture (RSRCRC) and were unable to provide examples of how this was implemented. Staff had not received training of information in relation to RSRCRC and how this impacted on the support they provided.

Training provided to staff was not always in line with best practice guidance. The provider had commissioned staff training in relation to restrictive practices, including restraint. The training undertaken was not accredited in line with the Restraint Reduction Network best practice guidance. Although the provider assured us this training was no longer being implemented due to people’s current needs, this demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding current best practice guidance.

In other areas we found people’s needs and wishes were listened to. One relative told us they felt Sparrow Health Care were one of the best care providers they had encountered due to how they listened to their loved one. They told us the support their loved one received had a positive impact on the family as a whole.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. Through support provided by the local authority, the provider had recognised the need to implement a more systematic approach to the support and management structure was required. They had employed a care co-ordinator and quality manager to support the service going forward. However, the lack of structured responsibilities of the different roles in the management team meant there were continued gaps in communication and monitoring systems. The provider told us they understood the need to establish effective processes before they expanded the service further.

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 provider was able to describe how people’s health care was monitored. However, they were unable to demonstrate how this was consistently reviewed, how concerns were recorded and how referrals to healthcare professionals were made when required. There were no systems in place to ensure consistency in how concerns were identified, recorded and acted upon to help people maintain good health and well-being. There was limited evidence of how people’s mental health should be supported or monitored in line with their needs.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The provider told us they had recently started to review people’s care and support and people confirmed this was the case. One person told us, “They have started coming to ask me about my care and discuss everything. I am very happy with my team.” Whilst review processes were being implemented, changes to care plans following this were not always updated with sufficient detail and guidance for staff. This demonstrated the systems required time to be embedded into practice and sustained.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and their relatives told us staff always ensured they asked their consent prior to providing care. One relative told us, “They are very good, [relative] trusts them which is why [they] are happy for them to do what’s needed.” One person told us staff did as they asked when providing support and felt they knew their needs well. All those currently receiving support from the service were able to consent to their care. The provider was able to confirm their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the measures they would need to take should people lack the capacity to consent to their care.