Motaryli 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 need for consent.

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 were effective. People’s needs were assessed prior to people starting the service and any changes were communicated to this person. However, information in the person’s care plan and risk assessments was not sufficient to enable staff to understand the person’s needs and to provide safe and effective care. For example, the person was at risk of falls but there was no reference to their current mobility, equipment in place or information on mitigating the risk during care calls. The registered manager told us they had plans in place to ensure improvement in this person’s care plans and risk assessments.

The provider generally planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, there were shortfalls with detail within the care plan and assessment which resulted in potential increased risk for the person, and this was not always in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, the person’s skin was at risk of deterioration but there was no clear guidance on how staff were to monitor the person’s skin and maintain its integrity during care calls and who to contact if staff had concerns. However, we found the person’s meal preferences were documented and evidenced choice and variety for this person. Staff supported with shopping and ensured foods were purchased which the person could easily chew as documented as a preference within their care plan. Staff visited at times appropriate for the person, which ensured routine and consistency in the delivery of care and support.

The provider 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. Although the staff team was small, the registered manager ensured staff received regular team meetings and supervision. The staff member spoken to told us, “Yes, the manager carries out supervision schedules and I feel supported.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. We could not be assured the person was receiving consistent support to improve their health and well-being. Reviews were due to be completed when changes of need had occurred. However, the most recent care plan did not always reflect this person’s current needs. Care records did not always provide information for staff on the person’s current limitations and the support they required to improve their quality of life. Guidance wasn’t always available to guide staff for what to look for and what action to take should someone’s health decline. However, Staff supported the person to access health care professionals as and when required and attended these appointments with this person if required. Staff also assisted this individual into the local community on a regular basis. Staff took their time with this person when delivering care and this person told us, “I don’t feel rushed by [staff].”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent. The service had worked well to improve the well-being and quality of life of the person they cared for. The registered manager told us how the care they provided had positively impacted this individual and how proud they were of the improved outcomes. Staff consistency enabled staff to know this person well and concerns were highlighted to relevant professionals in a timely manner.

Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent before delivering care and had received up to date training around the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). One member of staff told us, “To involve people in their care I must be able to communicate with them in an open and clear way by involving them in decision making. I must also check for understanding and ensure consent is documented.” However, the person’s financial matters were managed informally by staff at the service. We found there was no clear description within the person’s care plan as to the person’s wishes around financial decisions or information showing the person understood and consented to this level of support being provided. We found no safeguards or risk assessments in place for the handling of the finances, or detail on how staff would manage the person’s monies safely. The service did not work in line with their handling service user’s money policy. When we spoke to the person, their knowledge on who managed their finances was conflicting, which raised concerns around the person’s capacity to consent. This information was feedback to the registered manager who assured us the appropriate safeguards would be included within this person’s care plan. The registered manager promptly contacted the local authority to request further support.