INFINITYCARE365 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 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. The registered manager or a member of the management team visited people to complete assessments with them. They explored people’s preferences and needs. People and, where appropriate their relatives contributed to the discussion and gave details about their wishes, backgrounds and life histories. A relative told us, “[Member of the management team] went through everything with us, about where [person] was in their life and everything that happened (before support was needed). The urgent community response team did the bit before that. [Member of the management team] sat with us and went through everything step by step, including [person’s] history and where they want to be, we were asked about preferences etc.”

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. Nationally recognised tools were used to assess and monitor people’s needs. For example, Waterlow tools were completed to assess people’s risks of sustaining pressure damage. Care plans were developed to guide staff on actions to take, such as, to apply prescribed creams and support with position changes. We saw a person had sustained a deep pressure injury prior to using the service, staff followed guidance resulting in the pressure ulcer healing.

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. We saw examples where professionals and staff worked with people to promote good outcomes. A healthcare professional told us, “[Registered manager] is really on the ball, they met with me to see what I was doing with [person]. They took on board everything I suggested, we risk assessed everything, they came up with equipment suggestions. I advised [person] to do exercises which staff did with them constantly. It’s always been a very professional service.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Some people required support to manage meal preparation and assistance with their meals. Staff knew how to support people safely and knew people’s preferences well. Care plans contained information about allergies and dietary requirements. The registered manager told us how they had liaised with the speech and language therapy (SaLT) team when they were concerned about people’s choking risk. Care plans guided staff on how to reduce the risk of choking when supporting people with meals, for example, to ensure the person was sitting up, to use a smaller spoon and to allow plenty of time. There was some inconsistency in one person’s care records; this was conflicting advice about their food preparation to either a soft texture or a pureed texture, the person was due to be assessed by the SaLT team, we raised this with the registered manager who advised they would review this to ensure clearer guidance.

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. People were supported by a range of professionals including palliative care nurses, occupational therapists and physio therapists. Care records contained guidance for staff to follow, people’s daily notes confirmed staff followed their advice, for example, when exercises were prescribed to increase people’s strength. People’s needs were continually changing, the registered manager reviewed their care records to reflect changes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment, however, consent was not always formally documented. Some people’s care records documented they lacked mental capacity to make some decisions. The registered manager had not completed mental capacity assessments (MCAs) to evidence this. They acted on our feedback during our inspection and had commenced completing MCAs with people. People and their relatives told us staff always asked for consent and respected their wishes. A relative said, “They ask consent or talk through what they are doing with [person], and checks [person] is ok with everything they are doing. They give choices of things and show [person], they are very good at involving them. They always say it’s [person’s] choice.” Staff wrote in daily care records that they requested verbal consent before supporting people.