Smarta Services 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 67 (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 assessed and reviewed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs to help ensure their care and treatment was effective.

Staff carried out initial assessments before packages of care began and reviewed people’s needs when they identified changes.

The provider did not consistently plan or deliver care with people or in a way that reflected what was important to them. The provider did not follow relevant legislation or best practice guidance when planning care, including in areas such as fire safety, diabetes and dementia. Staff did not always follow national guidance when managing medicines.

The provider worked effectively with other teams and services to support people. Records showed the service worked in partnership with a range of health professionals, including social workers, occupational therapists, community nurses and GPs. Staff told us they referred concerns promptly, for example contacting district nurses when they identified issues with a person’s skin health. District nurses then provided support, which helped people achieve positive health outcomes.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

Care plans identified most people’s healthcare needs, including the level of support required to maintain good health. People and their relatives told us staff responded appropriately to changes in needs and took action when concerns arose.

The provider communicated changes in people’s healthcare needs effectively. Staff received timely updates through the electronic care planning system, which enabled them to access relevant information and respond promptly to changes.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to support improvements. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent.

The provider involved people in reviewing their care, and feedback confirmed this. The provider told us they reviewed and updated care plans annually or when people’s needs changed.

Staff recorded information about people’s food and fluid intake when requested by healthcare professionals. This supported the monitoring of nutritional needs and informed decision-making about people’s care.

The provider did not consistently ensure people understood their rights in relation to consent or that staff respected these rights when delivering care and treatment. Although policies and procedures were in place to support valid consent, managers did not demonstrate a sufficient understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or how to apply it in practice.

People told us staff asked for their consent before providing care. However, the provider did not consistently follow MCA processes. Records did not always show how staff supported people who lacked capacity to make decisions. As a result, the service did not consistently follow the correct procedures for obtaining and recording consent.