Platinum Care Services

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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.

Most people had lived at the home for a long time. The provider had systems in place for regularly reviewing people’s needs to ensure people’s care met their individual requirements. People, relatives and health and social care professionals were involved in reviews. A relative told us, “I am always invited to annual reviews on a face-to-face basis with senior managers present.” Another relative told us, “I have 6 monthly reviews for [person’s name] care plan reviews, via Teams/Zoom, a senior social worker is always present, and the family are kept in touch regarding any issues/changes required.”

A professional told us they had visited the service every 6 months for the last 4 years to review the care of the person they represented. They told us the registered manager and staff have an ‘excellent’ understanding of the person’s needs. They had no concerns about the person’s care.

We discussed with the provider that daily records were not always detailed and did not consistently record people’s response to care. The provider had also identified this in their own audit and work was underway to make improvements.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

We looked to see if the principles of the Right support, right care, right culture guidance were implemented into everyday practice. which includes maximising choice and independence, promotes person centred care and ensures staff empower people to be confident. We also saw opportunities to promote people’s independence were not always promoted. When we shared our concerns with the provider, they told us although staff had received training, including specific to the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people, they had identified some further training and development of staff was needed. They shared with us their plans in place to do this.

Some consideration had been given to how the home was designed and decorated to support the needs and preferences of people. For example, consideration had been given to a person regarding their bathroom requirements, and this had been responded to appropriately by the provider. However, due to the significant cleanliness and environmental health and safety and maintenance issues identified, it was not always clear when these very specific considerations had been made. Homes should be designed and maintained in a way that is non- restrictive; however, we saw the garden had not been maintained and bushes and nettles blocked people’s safe access to the garden. This had been addressed by day 2 of our visit and we saw people freely accessing this outside space.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

Our observations were of a team that were not always working together effectively to meet the needs of people living at the home. It was not always clear what action was taken when things were not going to plan at the service. For example, we saw a number of unaddressed health and safety risks to people that could have been quickly addressed by a staff team working together. Feedback from staff was mixed about how they worked as a team. However, all staff spoke positively about the registered manager.

The staff team had worked alongside other professionals, and we received entirely positive feedback about these working relationships. A professional told us, “Communication with the team has always been positive, and they are proactive in addressing any queries or concerns. The staff show dedication to maintaining people’s wellbeing and dignity.”

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.

People were supported by the staff team and external professionals to manage their health. The staff team supported people to attend a range of healthcare appointments. A professional told us that people were supported to attend their annual learning disability and mental health checks when requested. They also said people were well supported with any follow up checks needed.

A relative told us, “Staff arrange all professional appointments and accompany [person’s name] on these. I would recommend the service to others. The whole set up is very much on top of the health care aspect, it is a very wonderful and transparent place.”

There was a system in place for recording medical appointment outcomes, however this had not been robustly followed. The provider had identified this and we saw a more robust system was being implemented. This included the registered manager seeing and signing off all medical appointment outcomes.

Although the provider monitored people’s care and treatment, it was not always clear how people were involved in their future goals and aspirations.

The registered manager was able to describe in detail improvements in people’s quality of life since moving to the service. Relatives and professionals also shared examples of positive changes in people’s wellbeing.

However, while some positive outcomes were seen, this was not always captured in people’s records. We saw short and long-term planning for people was not in place. Daily records were not always detailed and did not consistently reflect people’s response to care and records were not always completed after medical appointments had taken place. This meant we were not fully assured that people’s experiences and quality of life were being monitored and improved on an ongoing basis.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of gaining people’s consent before providing care and support and staff had completed mental capacity training. A staff member told us, “I always explain to people what I am doing”. The provider told us some updating of best interest and mental capacity records was in progress, and this had been identified through their own systems and work to update records was taking place.