Shores Homecare Limited

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

Staff contacted people every month to review their care needs and update their care plans. Staff were vigilant about people’s changing needs and ensured senior staff were aware immediately. This meant care plans were changed if required. A staff member told us, “Enough time is given. If new needs are identified they (managers) review this and ask for more time to help manage the new need.” Relatives felt comfortable to ask for a review of people’s care and told us the service was always responsive to these requests.

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.

A staff member explained that staff always received additional training or support when the service started supporting someone with a different need. This ensured people were supported by staff who had received the most up-to-date information available about their health condition or need.

The provider worked closely with teams and services to support people. However, they had not always made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs.

One person’s care record did not contain enough detail for staff to be directed about how to support them in a personalised way. This person’s needs had been assessed by the Local Authority and the person had declined to provide information to the service. However, the service had not sought to obtain this information from elsewhere or ensure their care plan had been updated once staff had gained more information. We discussed this with the deputy manager who arranged for this to be completed immediately after our inspection visit.

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.

Staff were vigilant about monitoring people’s health needs and ensuring they accessed appropriate health professionals and attended appointments when necessary. For example, the service had worked with physiotherapists to support people’s ongoing reablement.

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

Staff were proactive in monitoring people’s care and considering where improvements could be made, where needed. People were supported to improve and maintain their quality of life. A person told us, “I am supported rather than looked after. Staff know me and how to support me at the right time. It’s important they do this. They constantly ask what else they can do.”

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

People had consented to their care and support. Where people were unable to consent, the service had ensured their relatives had made the appropriate best interest decisions and acted on people’s behalf. People told us staff always explained and sought their permission before supporting them.