Hearts of Care Agency

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 Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 did not always ensure assessments fully reflected people’s health, care, wellbeing, communication and individual needs.

People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. Assessments covered health, care and communication needs, but did not consistently contain enough detail about people’s wider circumstances and individual needs.

Records included people’s previous experiences of care, wishes, routines and important relationships. However, personal, cultural, social and religious needs were not always explored in sufficient detail to demonstrate a fully holistic assessment.

Assessments and care records were reviewed and updated when needs or circumstances changed. However, further improvement was needed to ensure all assessments were consistently comprehensive and person-centred.

The provider planned and delivered care with people, reflecting what mattered to them and following legislation, current evidence and recognised good practice.

People and, where appropriate, their relatives helped plan and decide how care was delivered. A person told us, “I am often asked if everything is ok, if I need to change anything, if I am happy with my care [arrangements].”

External consultants supported the management team to keep up to date with current clinical guidance, while staff received ongoing learning opportunities to improve people’s outcomes.

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.

The management and staff team worked with other professionals such as district nurses, GPs, social workers and therapy teams to ensure people received well-co-ordinated care which met their individual needs.

Management and staff communicated through a mobile messaging application, and digital notes were shared to ensure all staff knew how to respond to changes in people’s needs.

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.

Where agreed in care arrangements, staff encouraged healthy lifestyle choices, including physical activity and a balanced diet. A person had set goals to improve their mobility by attending the gym and maintaining their independence, which staff supported them to achieve.

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 and the management team ensured outcomes for people living in their own homes were positive, consistent, and aligned with both recognised good practice guidance and people’s personal expectations.

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

At the time of our inspection, the person using the service had the capacity to make their own decisions. Staff and managers, we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of when mental capacity assessments would be required, including how to record the key individuals involved. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) supports people to make their own decisions wherever possible and requires any best-interests decision for a person lacking capacity to be the least restrictive option. Training records showed staff were up to date with MCA training, and the person we spoke with said staff sought consent before providing support.