RSBC 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 newly registered 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.

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 was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care staff and the directors told us one of the directors initially assessed people at the commencement of the care package and attended the first care call. However, this had not always been documented. Where people had been discharged from hospital and hospital staff had assessed them, formal assessments completed by the provider were not always in place despite the provider and staff giving assurances informal assessments had taken place.

Where people’s needs had changed, assessments were not always updated in a timely manner. People’s assessments were kept in their homes and minimal documentation was stored in the office. Where documentation was kept in the office, it was not always up to date as it had not always been amended to reflect the changes made to documentation in people’s homes.

Despite improvements being required with documentation, staff knew people well and were knowledgeable about their current needs. Where assessments had been completed by the provider, they were holistic and considered their physical, emotional, social and communication needs and their likes and dislikes.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them or have systems in place that ensured they considered current evidence-based care.

Systems did not always ensure staff were up to date with good practice or required standards. Where policies were in place, they had not been reviewed since 2022 which meant the provider could not be assured recent legislation and good practice had been considered.

Staff and leaders were not always encouraged to learn about new approaches that evidence shows could improve the service. Despite this, care was delivered in a way that was important to people they supported and in line with their preferences.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff raised concerns about safety but the provider did not always formally investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Risks relating to the governance of the service were not always understood and were overlooked which had the potential to place people at risk of harm.

Incidents, accidents and complaints were not always documented which meant the provider could not be assured they had identified patterns, learnt where things went wrong and taken appropriate action to mitigate risk to people. For example, people told us there had been isolated missed calls they had reported but there was no record of this.

People and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and were confident they would not be treated negatively if they did so. One relative told us they had raised a concern about a member of staff which may have been a conflict of interests with the directors, but this was treated professionally and responded to immediately.

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 were supported by staff who understood their needs and preferences and who were passionate about supporting them to manage their own health needs. Staff worked with people to encourage them to make healthier choices and promoted their independence to improve their health outcomes.

People’s health needs were regularly reviewed and although they weren’t always documented effectively, staff we spoke with knew people’s health needs well.

Staff were proactive in highlighting any health concerns to office staff who ensured people received support from health and social care professionals when needed. We saw examples of where people had received input from SALT, GP’s and occupational therapists.

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, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Approaches to monitoring people’s care and outcomes were not always consistent and robust. People’s care and treatment was informally monitored by the provider, and we saw evidence of monthly reviews of people’s care plans. However, there was no formal oversight of this to ensure all people’s care documentation was reviewed at regular intervals to ensure they were receiving the care they needed and achieving the most optimum outcomes. We found some examples where outdated documentation was still in people’s care files which meant monitoring undertaken was not always effective to ensure people’s care was improved when needed.

Despite this, people and relatives gave examples of where care received by people had promoted positive outcomes for them and also helped to give relatives peace of mind that people were receiving the care they needed when they did not live close by.

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

People were required to sign a consent form to receive care prior to the commencement of the care package and people told us they were asked for their consent before care was provided.

Where required, mental capacity assessments had been completed to determine if people could make their own informed decisions. Where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, staff liaised with their relatives to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests.

People told us their rights were respected and staff made sure they were fully understood. People were supported by staff who took their views into account and planned their care around their individual wishes.