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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them and during this assessment, we saw an improvement in the assessing and recording of the person’s needs. However, we found some gaps in the person’s assessment and management of risk. Although a new care system was in place, the assessment and audit process required strengthening, to ensure going forwards there was a clear standard of governance in this area, where gaps in people’s care records such as environmental and IPC risk assessments, are acknowledged and addressed routinely.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The new care planning system in place allowed more thorough records or the person’s health and well-being and staff were now recording monthly ‘waterlow’ scores to assess the person’s risk of pressure sores and supporting with quarterly weight checks due to risks of weight loss. Although new evidence-based systems were in place, these were in their infancy, and we could not be assured how effective these were during the assessment. The systems in place to use recognised tools required embedding into practice, to ensure the service knew how to continuously deliver and monitor evidenced-based care and treatment.

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. Staff worked with other services to understand and meet people’s needs. For example, district nurses and the person’s GP. Care records included details about the person’s health conditions and were updated when needs changed. Records of conversations with health and social care professionals could now be stored in the provider’s electronic care system. This gave staff an overview of health needs and professional involvement. Although the staff team was small is size, we reviewed evidence of regular team meetings taking place where discussions were had about changes to the person’s needs and what actions staff should carry out as a result.

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. The service involved people in decisions about their health and encouraged them to make choices. The care delivered was in line with the person’s preferences and wishes. Their care included social support to allow the person to be supported to do things that mattered to them and allocated time to support the individual with their food shopping.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff knew the person well and could identify quickly when their health deteriorated by referring to their care plans and guidance within them. Although staff could recognise the physical signs of the person’s deterioration, new process such as monitoring tools and audits for the person’s health and well-being required further implementation to enable concerns to be highlighted, audited and actioned on a regular basis. During our assessment, we saw evidence that the person’s care records were reviewed but could not be assured with evidence that the person’s care records were updated, as a result of their needs changing.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. During the last assessment, the service was in breach of legal regulations due to not working in line with their policy and best practice around gathering consent of the person for managing their finances informally. At this assessment, the appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the individual consented and understood how their finances would be managed. More robust procedures were in place, such as a consent form, risk assessment and a new system for documenting spending. However, it was fed back to the registered manager that the current policy in place references legislation, which is not applicable for this region. The policy required updating with the relevant legislation to enable staff to have the correct knowledge around a person’s decision making and consent to care and treatment.