Archived: Achievers Care Solutions Limited

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 was the provider’s first inspection at their new location. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to inadequate. We found widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to consent. This was because the provider could not demonstrate if consent was sought from people using the service or their relatives.

This service scored 38 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Effective systems were not in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people to keep them safe. The registered manager was unable to provide evidence of a formal initial assessment of any of the people using the service. The registered manager told us, “It’s done on a piece of paper with the [relative].” A relative told us, “The registered manager came with two of her staff to do the assessment and they asked me a series of questions about [relative] and what they like doing, hobbies.” Despite this, the registered manager was unable to show us a record of this or any initial assessments.

People did not have the right information in their care records to give staff direction to care for them safely. One person’s record stated they had an Epi Pen to be administered to reduce the effects of an allergy however the registered manager confirmed the person did not have an allergy and did not need the use of an Epi Pen.

Staff we spoke to said they could meet the needs of the people they looked after because they knew them well but there was no staff guidance, updated care plans or risk assessments to give them any direction to meet people’s needs safely.

Although people’s relatives told us they were involved in care planning, we did not see evidence of this being recorded by the provider.

We did see records where the registered manager had liaised with Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) specialist, PBS is a person-centred framework for supporting individuals with learning disabilities and autism. We did not see any specialist advice or guidance from the PBS teams implemented into people’s care records to ensure the support they received met their individual needs. The registered manager worked with the local authority during care reviews, however any updates or actions taken were not reflected in care plans.

The registered manager told us they worked effectively across teams and services to support people. When needed they would contact other professionals such as social workers and health care professionals and we saw evidence of this. However, care records did not reflect advise given by professionals and lacked detail around people’s support needs. For example one person’s care plan stated that they were under the care of a Speech and Language Team (SALT) but did not elaborate on what these needs were or what involvement the team had with the person’s care.

Processes were not in place to support people to live healthier lives. Care plans did not include correct information about people’s nutrition or hydration needs. Information in care plans about dietary requirements were incorrect, for example, records described one person needing their food ‘chopped up’. The registered manager confirmed the person had no needs regarding eating and drinking and was able to eat independently and had no eating and drinking needs that required staff support.

The service had failed to make improvements since our last inspection. Records indicated people did not always receive person centred care to meet their needs. People’s relatives told us they received care from regular staff who knew people’s needs and provided appropriate support. However, we found people were not involved in planning their own care.

Although the registered manager told us they routinely monitored care and treatment to continuously improve and ensure outcomes are positive and consistent, there was no evidence to support this.

Relatives did not raise concerns regarding staff asking for consent however we found consent to care was not always recorded. Processes were not in place to ensure care and treatment was provided with the consent of the relevant person, failing to ensure that the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or people with parental responsibility for those under 16. The Court of Protection has the powers to make decisions about the property and affairs of people under the age of 16 were complied with. During discussions with the registered manager there was a lack of understanding of how and when to complete capacity assessments.