2M Health & Home Care Services 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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Where appropriate, people and relatives were involved in their assessment. This information was used as a basis for developing care plans, to meet each person’s personal care needs. When the provider receives a referral for a new care package the registered manager told us “We go out to assess their needs before we send their carers. We agree the assessment with the service user how they want to be cared for and then we make a care plan together.” One relative told us, “We have a care plan, and it has just been reviewed recently.” Another relative said, “I’ve seen the care plan, it was reviewed 6 months ago and asked for bits to be added.” However, when people’s needs changed, assessments were not always updated and amended in a timely manner. For example, 1 person’s care records guided staff to perform catheter care. However, the person no longer had a catheter in place. This meant staff did not always have up to date and relevant information about people’s care and support needs.One staff member told us how they had asked the office to improve and update care plan information, but management action was sometimes slow.

People mostly received evidence-based care and treatment. However, we found care records did not always contain sufficient detail to guide staff in how to provide best practice care. Risk assessments did not always provide staff with clear information regarding people’s particular healthcare needs such as the risks associated with high-risk medicines. This placed people at potential risk of harm.

The provider offered training and guidance for staff to help make sure they had the skills and knowledge needed to care for people. Staff told us training was helpful and equipped them for their role. A staff member told us,“We do lots of training.”

People and their relatives were satisfied with the way they received care and support from care staff. They mostly commented positively on the competence of care staff. One relative said, “[Person] gets 2 carers and knows them all. They all seem well trained, they know what to do, they are in a routine.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff worked with external healthcare professionals. Management made referrals when they identified changes in people’s needs. They communicated with care professionals such as the local authority and GP. The registered manager told us, “If [there is] a pressure sore we inform Single Point of Access [SPA], if someone's care needs change, we speak with social services, for example if a package needs increasing, if health changes, we inform GPs.”

Feedback we received from external stakeholders was positive about how they worked with other services. They told us “We have found communication has been fine with our team and they have welcomed feedback and input from us.”

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 and their relatives told us they were supported to access health services when they needed to. One relative said, “They [staff] check for bed sores but also tell us if they notice a dry patch and put cream on. They saw 1 where the skin had broken and contacted the nurse for us.”

Staff were aware of people’s health needs. External healthcare professional feedback was positive. One external professional told us, “They [staff] have provided information and attended reviews when required.”

The provider did not always routinely review, monitor and record people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The provider carried out telephone monitoring reviews of the service to check that people were happy with their care. However, care plans and medicines records were not being robustly audited to ensure risks were assessed and mitigated.Lack of effective systems to provide service level oversight could potentially result in themes and trends not being identified and missed opportunities to improve service delivery. However, overall people were positive about their care and were experiencing positive outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the MCA. People’s care records evidenced that staff respected people’s choices and decisions. A staff member said, “I inform people and get consent for everything I'm going to do; they will tell you what they want you to do.” Another staff member told us, “We must gain consent and involve people in decisions. We tell them what we are going to do and involve them in decisions.”

People told us they made choices and day to day decisions about their lives. A person told us, “They always ask permission.” And another person said, “They always ask [consent] and never rush.”