Utopia Care Limited - Thurrock Branch

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 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 service 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 told us they were not always involved in the planning of their care and support needs. We found limited evidence to demonstrate people using the service were involved in the assessment of their needs or developing their care plan and risk assessments. Although people told us that staff knew them well, a relative told us, “The staff all seem to know what to do but I haven’t seen a care plan.”

The registered manager told us they carried out a full assessment of people’s needs before they started using the service to ensure their needs could be met. This involved meeting people and getting feedback from health professionals involved in the person’s care. However, we found this was not reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments accurately.

People's care plans and risk assessments were not always personalised, and records we looked at failed to demonstrate people’s needs were being regularly reviewed to ensure their support plans continued to reflect their needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People's care plans and risk assessments were not always personalised. Not all care plans included information about people’s nutrition and hydration needs. There was no detail of any enhanced monitoring, risks or related health conditions. This meant staff did not always have access to the information they needed to work with people.

Staff supported people to have the meals of their choice and supported them to have enough drinks during the day, and this information was recorded in people’s daily notes. A staff member told us, “I always talk to people and offer choice and overtime we get to know what their likes and dislikes are.” However, daily notes completed by staff did not always record information correctly and did not always include what people had to eat or drink.

The service 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. We received positive feedback from a health professional. They told us, “We have found the agency themselves to be very proactive when responding to our queries, and honest regarding any compliance issues that have arisen.”

However, people’s care plans did not contain information about involvement with other professionals and how staff worked in partnership with others to help ensure people received personalised care and support.

Staff meetings and supervision sessions were in place to ensure staff were provided with current information to work together to support people.

The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Most people told us they were not involved in monitoring and reviewing their own health and wellbeing needs. They told us they were not having regular reviews with the service or being supported to be involved in their care package.

A member of staff told us, “I familiarise myself with a person’s care plan and get to know the person before supporting them. I want to make sure they can live their best life.”

However, information in people’s care plans was generic and not personalised to the individual people using the service. Not all care plans included people’s preferences on how they would like their healthcare needs to be supported and level of independence. For example, care plans did not promote healthier food choices or options for people with diabetes.

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 registered manager told us they had systems in place to monitor care outcomes and used this information to develop the service. For example, they monitored call times, and the number of care workers involved in people’s care. However, this information was not recorded or analysed to look for themes and trends or to see where improvements were needed. The care manager told us they made regular calls to people and relatives to obtain feedback. However, most people we spoke to confirmed that had not received any calls.

The provider’s processes for monitoring and improving people’s outcomes was not always robust. This meant people were at risk of receiving care that did not fully meet their assessed needs or support them to achieve the best possible outcomes.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. People we spoke with told us they were able to make informed choices.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff understood the need to gain consent from people to support them with their care needs and in making decisions. Staff told us, “I have recently completed my training, and I understand the importance of gaining consent from the people I support.”

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in their own homes an application must be made to the Court of Protection for them to authorise people to be deprived of their liberty.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

We found staff practice reflected the principles of the MCA. People were encouraged to make their own decisions, while still minimising risk. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the MCA 2005 framework.