Areys Care

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

Effective – this means evidence was sought that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This was the first assessment since the service registered with CQC on 29 May 2023. 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 54 (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 they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and relatives said they were involved when care first started. One relative said, “The manager came and assessed the needs and agreed the plan.” Another said, “We had a full discussion about the care plan and risk assessments, and they gave me a copy.”

However, the provider did not always keep care plans up to date. Some care plans reviewed did not clearly show people’s current needs, communication needs and risks. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance to provide care safely and effectively.

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

The provider did not always involve people in planning their care or recorded what mattered to them. Staff said they met people’s needs, but care records did not always show this was reviewed. Some care plans used generic wording. For example, ' Provide personal care'. This did not give staff clear guidance on how to support people with their day-to-day needs.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Working relationships with partners were in place, supported by routine communication through phone calls and care notes. However, systems for structured information sharing and coordinated working were not developed, and changes in people’s needs were not always reflected in updated care plans. This reduced assurance that information was consistently shared and acted on across the service and with partners to maintain effective, coordinated support.

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.

Staff helped people access healthcare when needed. Families often arranged appointments. Staff then worked with families to support these visits. One relative said, “The family arranges appointments and informs the manager if visits need to change.” This showed staff responded to information from families. Staff also changed care visits when needed.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider did not always check whether care and support improved people’s quality of life. Staff did not routinely use information about people’s outcomes to identify what worked well or what needed to improve. This meant the provider could not always show that they reviewed people’s care against their health needs, personal goals, and wishes. It also meant they could not show that they used learning to improve care and support.

Records did not always show how staff monitored changes in people’s wellbeing. They did not always show how managers reviewed health concerns. This meant we had limited assurance staff may always identify changes early.

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

The application of Mental Capacity Act principles was not always clearly recorded, including where decisions were being made with family involvement. Mental capacity and best-interest documentation was not consistently completed, which reduced assurance that consent, capacity and decision-making processes were consistently applied and evidenced.