Mach Care Solutions (Birmingham)

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 Requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At the last inspection the provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person centred care, ensuring peoples consent was gained and people were involved in assessments and consulted about their care.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of any legal regulations relating to consent.

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.

People told us their needs were assessed before they were offered a service. This ensured the service was suitable for them. People said there were 6 monthly care reviews thereafter, but if their needs changed, more frequent reviews would be held. One relative told us “We talk about any changes – temporary or permanent.”

Management confirmed this and said they always met people initially, either in their own homes or other care settings. This ensured a detailed account of the person and the support they needed was gained. Further assessments were completed following any changes in the person’s health or if being discharged from hospital.

Management and staff told us any changes to care provision were made in a timely manner and advice was sought from professionals as required. This included asking an occupational therapist to assess a person for any equipment they might find useful.

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.

People told us staff supported them how they wanted them to. One person told us “They really always go above and beyond nothing is too much trouble”. People told us they were fully involved in developing their care plan, and staff were matched to them by culture, communication such as different languages and interests. This worked well and enabled established relationships to be built.

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.

Management told us they had developed good relationships with a range of health and social care professionals. They said they were able to ask for advice without necessarily following a lengthy referral process. This ensured people received timely support, which met their needs. Staff told us they had supported a person to hospital appointments as family members were unable to do so. This ensured that the person was comfortable with the treatments. The staff member said they acted as an advocate to ensure health care professionals understood the person’s needs and wishes.

Care records demonstrated any contact with health and social care professionals and discussions with relatives.

Health care professionals we spoke with told us that the care staff and the managers knewand support people well.

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.

Management told us they encouraged people to be healthy through good nutrition and hydration, and to keep as active as possible. They ensured that staff who were able to cook specific types of food were allocated to people where they required special diets.

We saw evidence that the level of support some people needed had reduced due togreater independence and improved health.

Staff told us they always promoted healthier lives when supporting people. This included supporting people to mobilise safely and offering healthy food options. They said when someone was not feeling well, they always encouraged them to eat and drink even if this took additional time. They would leave drinks and snacks and let family members know.

A family member told us “They [staff] always help my loved one with their exercises which means they are getting stronger everyday”

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.

People were very happy with the support they received. There were regular reviews which enabled people and their relatives to give feedback and make any changes to the support received.

Management told us they phoned people regularly or visited them to ensure they were satisfied with the service. They said they called to check on anyone who had not been well.

We saw evidence where the service had supported people with significant changes to their needs at short notice to ensure they were safe and well.

The manager explained how they have a bank of staff available to support at short notice when required. This ensured the person’s wellbeing and enabled additional support to be offered as required.

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

Records showed staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and were aware of the main principles. They told us they always assumed capacity unless a formal assessment determined otherwise.

Care records contained detailed mental capacity assessments and gave staff clear information about which decisions people required support with the least restrictive way of providing support and who had been involved in the decision-making process.

Staff told us they always asked people for consent before delivering any care intervention. They said they enabled people to direct their care, so theydid what the person wanted. Refusal of support was clearly documented and reported to the manager for further guidance.