Right at Home Exeter & Exmouth Also known as Kintail 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 Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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.

People had their needs assessed before using the service. Care records were developed that highlighted key information such as risks and communication preferences. Care plans were clear, detailed and person-centred, and included how staff were to support people to meet their needs. Staff told us they were provided with information about people who were new to the service before they arrived.

There were systems and processes to ensure care records were continually assessed and changes to their care and treatment plans were made where required to ensure good outcomes. Staff told us identified changes were communicated to the management team and care plans were updated to reflect the change.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We saw evidence the diverse range of people’s needs had been assessed, including their communication needs, and this information was documented in a person-centred way. People told us they received care in line with what mattered to them. People’s health conditions were well documented. There was specific information that supported care staff to understand people’s health needs.

Where specific risk was identified, there was clear professional guidance on how to mitigate the risk. For example, there was specific guidance on how to support a person who was at risk of choking. Evidence based guidance from relevant healthcare professionals had been embedded into the person’s care plan.

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.

People’s care plans included where other health professionals had input into their care, such as Speech and Language Therapists or Occupational Therapists. Staff told us they worked together well as a team. Where required, the service contacted external professionals as needed. People and their relatives confirmed the service supported them with this as required.

Staff had access to people’s care and support plans to understand people’s needs and deliver their care. Staff told us they worked well together with colleagues, so key information was shared as needed. Staff commented how seeing the same people regularly helped support care continuity.

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’s healthcare needs were identified in their care plans. This included the level of support they needed to maintain good health. Staff told us if they identified a change in people’s needs this was communicated to the service management. The service could also communicate changes with staff via the electronic care planning system, which meant updates and key messages could be shared promptly.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans identified specific goals and outcomes related to their care. Staff were aware of these and how to support people.The provider undertook quality assurance through home visits, surveys, and welfare calls. This meant known risks, complaints or concerns raised by people or their relatives were immediately identified and acted upon to reduce the risk of poor outcomes.

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

There were systems and processes in place around assessment to ensure the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was followed. For example, we saw where people’s relatives or representatives had lawful authority to make decisions on behalf of someone, the appropriate documentation was in place.

Staff we spoke with told us they completed MCA training as part of their induction. Training in the MCA was also provided as part of the providers ongoing training package. One staff member said, “Yes, we do MCA [training] and you always assume people have capacity and we make sure people have the right to make their own decisions.”

No concerns were raised by people or their relatives in relation to staff seeking consent. One person we spoke with told us, “They’re [care staff] led by me, so they very much support me in what I want to do”.