Angel Support (Newham) 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.

A pre-assessment form determined if the service could support people’s needs safely and effectively through capturing key information on support needs and risks.

People’s choices and their preferences were included as part of assessments. A relative told us, “I know my relative was involved in the assessment. The [Registered manager] ensured new carers were introduced and meet my relative.” By involving people directly in their care planning, the provider promoted autonomy, dignity, with the care and support people received.

People’s needs were regularly assessed. Records showed the service assessed people’s needs regularly to ensure the care they received, reflected their needs and were personalised. Reviews included assessing people’s needs on support required, review of care plan, medicine and risks.

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.

The provider was able to provide evidence-based care and treatment. Policies were in line with national good practice and care was given in a person-centred way, in line with the person’s wishes, and people were involved in their assessment of need. Care plans included information about what mattered to them, including their likes, dislikes and preferences.

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 provider worked with the local authority and other services to ensure people’s needs were met and that they were able to move between services in a smooth way. The initial assessment of people’s needs and subsequent care plans included input from the commissioning local authority. Information was shared with the staff team at the service to ensure all care workers were aware of the person’s assessed needs and people themselves were involved in the assessment process.

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.

Care plans clearly highlighted the support the person using the service required and how to meet them. Relevant risk assessments were completed to mitigate risks. In addition, relevant people were contacted in making decisions for the person using the service who lack mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

The provider was working with other agencies to meet people’s healthcare needs, for example, with GPs. Where required, they supported people to access healthcare professionals and make appointments.

Care workers were aware of people’s food likes/dislikes. Care workers supported people to access their local community where this was part of their planned care and support.

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.

The provider had systems for monitoring the care provided. Daily records were kept of what support was provided on each shift, and these were reviewed by the registered manager. Regular spot checks were conducted, and themed staff meetings to discuss further concerns and future activities for the people using the service.

The registered manager had regular contact with people and their relatives to check they were happy with the support provided. A relative said, “I spoke with [manager name] in the past and I know him, it is easy to speak to staff on the ground. They visited my relative while they were in hospital and keep me informed.”

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

People and relative told us they were involved in planning their care and support and were able to share their preferences for how they wished to receive care. Consent forms were signed by the relevant individuals and people we spoke with confirmed that they were fully involved in the care for people using the services. Care workers said they always sought consent before providing care. They said people were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions about their care. A care worker said, “I have received training in the mental capacity act and would never assume people could not make decisions for themselves. I will ask people what they want and give them a choice.”