Sahal Cares

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 assessed people’s needs. People were involved in these assessments. People told us they were happy they were able to make choices about their care. Assessments included information about important parts of people’s lives, including their culture, religion and family.

However, there was not always enough detailed information about the care that staff needed to provide to meet these assessed needs. Staff supporting people knew them well. However, there was a risk people would not always receive the right care and treatment because records were incomplete. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to review these records.

The provider did not always ensure people received evidence-based care. People were happy with their care and support. However, there was not always enough information for staff to ensure they understood about evidence-based care. For example, people’s care records did not include information about how to meet their individual needs. There was limited information about healthcare conditions and how people communicated.

Staff undertook some training but had not had specific training or guidance relating to best practice, updates in legislation and guidance or about people’s individual conditions.

We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to look at ways to improve information for staff to help ensure people received evidence-based care which reflected best practice.

Staff worked well together. There were effective systems for communicating. Staff told us they had regular contact with the registered manager. Staff explained they were given information before they started caring for a new person. They had meetings with the registered manager to discuss the service and any questions they had. Comments from staff included, “I have regular phone calls to discuss my client. If there are any issues, we talk. The manager stays in touch” and “They provided me with training before I started, and I have regular meetings.”

The provider had not always identified risks or people’s needs relating to their healthcare conditions. There was limited guidance for staff. This meant they may not be able to identify when a person became unwell or had symptoms related to a decline in their condition or medicines side effects. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to improve these records. The registered manager was a nurse. They told us they used their knowledge and skills to help guide staff and answer any queries they had. Staff told us they would contact the registered manager and people’s relatives if they had concerns about their wellbeing. People told us they were happy with the support from staff to keep them healthy. They explained staff helped them to keep active and provided suitable meals.

The provider did not always monitor people’s care and wellbeing. Staff kept records when they carried out care visits. However, these were not detailed and did not always include information about care provided or people’s wellbeing. The registered manager told us they regularly spoke with people using the service. However, they had not recorded formal reviews of their care. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to look at ways to improve record keeping showing how outcomes were being monitored.

People were asked to consent to their care and treatment. They confirmed this. They told us they were involved in decisions about their care and staff gave them choices during each visit. A person explained, “I am involved in making decisions and staff respect these. I am in control.” The provider asked people to sign records to show they consented to their care and agreed with care plans.

At the time of our assessment, everyone using the service had the mental capacity to make decisions about their care. The provider had procedures they would follow for people who lacked capacity. These included liaising with legal representatives and people’s relatives to help make decisions in their best interests.