Axis Care Group 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 service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because initial assessments and care needs assessments did not always inform people’s care plans and risk assessments as they should have.

Before a person started using the service, their local authority care needs assessment was shared with the service. Once the care package was accepted, the registered manager visited people in their own homes to better understand their individual needs.

People’s initial assessments were not always being used to their full potential. For example, for one person, there was a needs assessment completed by the local council which had lots of information regarding the person’s passions and interests which were not included within the care plan and risk assessments. There was sufficient detail regarding how to transfer the person which included which hoist straps should be placed where, but this was not included in the care plan or risk assessments.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect a comprehensive assessment of people’s needs. For example, there was no communication care plan in place for a person who, according to their communication risk assessment, required the use of Makaton and white boards to communicate. The risk assessment failed to offer any further detail as to how staff would use Makaton to communicate with the person.

The provider did not always provide care in line with the latest legislation, standards, and evidence-based research. We requested the providers policies for conditions which people had been diagnosed with, including diabetes, eating disorders and dementia but they were not provided.

Despite, the service being registered to provide support for people with autism and a learning disability, not all staff had a good knowledge of these conditions.

People’s care plans and risk assessments did not provide sufficient detail for staff to follow regarding people’s conditions such as dementia. For example, the strategies which the provider had identified to reduce risks included moving and handling and environmental risks and did not consider communication strategies and emotional reassurance.

Staff had identified concerns regarding a person’s intake of fluids and were proactive in encouraging them to drink more water. According to the person’s skin integrity risk assessment a nutrition and hydration goal had been set but this information was not included within their care plan or hydration and nutrition risk assessment.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The staff felt they worked well together as a team. A staff member said, “Even though we do not always see one another due to working on our own or in twos we all get along and support each other.”

The staff told us they had established direct and meaningful relationships with healthcare professionals and other services.

People’s care notes and care records included details of recent and upcoming health-related appointments.

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.

The provider was proactive in engaging with healthcare services such as speech and language therapy (SALT), dieticians and district nurses.

The staff ensured nutritious foods were provided in line with cultural and dietary requirements.

Staff empowered people, where capacity permitted, to take an active role in monitoring their own health and helped prevent or minimise deterioration.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to improve it, however desired outcomes were not identified consistently or monitored.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date or accurate and so we could not be assured staff were able to monitor and improve people’s outcomes. Staff were not always aware of the risks associated with the person and therefore would not be in a position to monitor or support the person to improve.

People and their relatives were mainly complimentary about their or their loved one’s outcomes. People told us staff were supporting them well and a relative said how their loved one was doing much better since being under the provider’s care.

The provider needed to strengthen their systems and processes regarding consent to care and treatment.

Consent forms had not always been completed accurately. For example, we saw examples in which people who had full mental capacity had not completed the forms, and their representative had done it for them. Additionally, a person had indicated not consenting to receiving support with a particular area of care, despite their care plan stating they did receive support.

Staff had a good understanding regarding the basic principles of consent and had been trained in the mental capacity act and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS).