Head Office

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.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about their involvement with the assessment process. One relative told us, “I haven’t seen a care plan or anything, so I don’t know what’s on it, what they should do. I would like to see one”. Other people and relatives felt involved with this process.

We saw there were assessments completed with people before they started using the service. As these assessments were not always used to develop care plans and risk assessments for people, we could not be assured they were always effectively used.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The registered manager told us they had a system in place which utilised evidence-based tools to assess people’s needs. The records we viewed did not support this, for example, 1 person had been assessed at risk of skin damage. Although this showed on the persons task list, there was no risk assessment or other information available identifying this risk and the actions or guidance staff should follow.

However, people were happy with how their care was delivered and raised no concerns. Staff were able to describe how they delivered care to people.

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

People and relatives were happy with how all the services worked together. One relative told us, “They all communicate with us very well. We listen to advice from them so we can pass it onto the district nurses and vice versa if the district nurses leave us anything they should know about. The staff leave us post it notes all over. It’s great communication with us and it works well.”

Staff worked well together, this included sharing information about people through daily notes. There was a system in place to ensure the staff team worked together and alongside other professionals to deliver care to people

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

Care plans and risk assessments relating to people’s health were not always in place for people to ensure staff had the guidance available to offer support if needed. For example, in 1 person’s assessment it was identified they had 3 different health conditions. However, there was no further information available for staff should they need this. This placed people at risk of not receiving the correct support to help them stay healthy.

Despite this, staff we spoke with were aware of people’s individual health needs and the action to take if they were concerned.

When needed referrals were made to other health professionals for advice, staff were aware of this advice, and this was followed.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

When there were care plans in place there were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were reviewed to ensure changes were made. Staff confirmed they were aware of people’s needs and how they delivered support in line with this.

Information was not always accurately recorded in relation to people’s capacity.

For 1 person it was documented in their assessment they did not have capacity to make decisions themselves. There was no further information for us to review, including mental capacity assessments. We discussed this with the provider who told us this was an error, and the person did have capacity.

The provider told us they were not currently supporting anyone who was not able to consent to their care. They told us they were aware that people would need capacity assessments and decisions made in their best interests if needed. Staff had received training in this area and were aware of the processes to follow.