Polly Care 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 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.

People and relatives told us they were involved in initial and on-going assessments.

The registered manager said they ensured each person was assessed so they would know their needs before providing care. The director told us, “We liaise with the occupational therapy team if the person requires support. We discuss what people want during the initial assessment.”

Initial assessments covered all aspects of the person and the care they required. Care plans were developed from the initial assessment.

The provider planned and delivered care and treatment to people, taking into account what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were involved in developing their care plans. Although these contained personalised information about people’s individual needs, some lacked information and guidance to ensure their care was effective. This is discussed in the safe and well-led sections in this report.

People told us they felt the support received from the care workers enabled them to get their needs met and improve their lives. For example, we were told a care worker had provided exceptional support by giving a person the confidence to begin using their prosthetic leg. The person acknowledged that they would not have made such progress without the care worker’s encouragement.

Staff supported people with their nutrition and hydration if this was part of their care plans and helped ensure people’s preferences were met. A relative told us, “The carer may do [family member’s] breakfast or lunch.”

The registered manager told us they were part of professional networks, and this helped to ensure they kept up to date with good practice.

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.

People told us staff worked well together and communicated with them well to meet their needs. The agency worked well with other external professionals to meet the needs of people when this was required. We requested feedback by email from a number of external professionals; however, we did not receive any responses.

The staff told us they worked well together and enjoyed their work. A care worker said, “Overall the staff morale is good. We communicate well with each other and keep each other up to date with any changes.”

The provider supported people in managing 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.

People told us the staff knew their health needs and met these. Although care plans lacked detailed information about some individuals' health conditions and how these might impact them, the care workers appeared to understand people’s needs well and how to meet them. The staff reported any concerns in relation to people’s health, and these were addressed appropriately, for example, a referral to the GP and the district nurses’ team.

The staff were able to access training specific to the healthcare needs of people they supported, such as diabetes, epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease and dementia. This helped them understand these conditions and meet the needs of people.

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.

Relatives were happy with the care their family members were receiving and trusted the staff. One relative told us, “They check for marks and treat them. The district nurse said that our carers had done a good job treating [family member’s] bed sore.”

There was evidence of regular reviews and action being taken immediately following any changes to people’s health needs. The service worked closely with healthcare professionals who knew people well and followed their advice to help meet people’s changing needs.

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

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People told us staff asked for their consent and involved them in decisions about their care and support. They said their choices were respected. However, not all the care plans we checked had been signed by the person. One care plan had been signed by the director, even though the person had capacity, and no explanation was given about why they had not been able to sign this. Another care plan had not been signed by anyone. We fed this back to the provider.

The staff received training on the principles of the MCA. They told us they always sought consent before supporting people. People who used the service had the capacity to make decisions and were supported accordingly.