Independent Living Alternatives

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. People’s care and support were not always known by the provider and confirmed they had achieved good outcomes.

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 check and discuss people’s health care needs with them.

The registered manager and provider were not always assessing people’s health and care, needs. There was very basic information regarding these needs in people’s risk assessments. Some people’s physical health needs were not referenced in their risk assessments. People did not have accompanying care plans to direct staff about how people’s care needs were to be met. The registered manager said people have capacity to direct staff and would lead their care. However, more work was needed for the provider to ensure they assessed people’s needs, so they understood their legal responsibilities when delivering planned care to people.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them as this was a service led by people themselves. But the provider had no oversight to ensure the provider was legally compliant.

People told us they directed their care and support. However, the provider and registered manager were not planning and checking the care delivered was based on best practice. We found this with people who received assistance with medicines and specialist equipment. No one had come to harm because of this, but there was a risk this could happen.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

People told us they would complete this work themselves and manage this aspect of their care. Staff felt informed about people’s preferences and how they wanted their daily lives to look like. Staff said they could contact the office for assistance if this was needed.

The provider did not have systems to ensure people’s health and wellbeing needs were being fulfilled.

People told us they were the ones who managed their own health needs. The provider did not see this as their role as people had mental capacity to manage this aspect of their lives. As a member of staff told us, “If a person experienced an accident the client has full capacity, they would tell me what to do.” But there were no processes in place if the provider needed to support people in this way. The provider and registered manager were not checking if staff were competent to know how to manage a situation if someone was unable to manage this situation themselves.

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.

The provider asked people to send feedback once a year about their care experience and they asked people about some aspects of their care, such as if staff were involved in their finances. The registered manager also completed yearly reviews. But these checks were limited in scope. Two people had missed their allocated yearly review dates, so this naturally moved onto the following year. For each of these people the registered manager was aware they needed some intervention in relation to their care from professionals. But this work had not been completed. We and the registered manager had identified 2 people were exposed to risks, but their needs had not been reviewed. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to contact the relevant care professionals to discuss this.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The ethos of the service was people needed to have mental capacity to receive care provided by Independent Living Alternatives. People told us staff followed their directions. Staff confirmed they were led by what people told them to do.