Firstcall 247 Limited (Gloucestershire)

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 67 (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’s needs were assessed before the start of their care package to ensure the service could meet their needs. We received mixed comments from people and their relatives about their assessment of needs. Most people said they received an initial assessment and said they had access to their care plan but did not recall their care being reviewed by the provider.

Whilst staff told us they were informed of about the care needs of new clients; the provider had not routinely documented how they had mitigated risks to people and staff when accepting new emergency care packages with limited information about people’s support needs.
 

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.

Managers told us they kept themselves updated and had access to good practice information through networking with the providers other services and receiving updates from key health and social care organisations.
 

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.

The managers and staff described effective communication within the team. Staff said they were able to access and share information effectively using the provider’s electronic care management system. The acting manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs. They described incidents of how they worked collaboratively with external professionals to ensure people's change in needs were referred to professionals and their recommendations implemented.
 

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.

The service worked effectively with people and their relatives to support and promote positive outcomes for people. The acting manager provided an example of how they had improved one person’s quality of life and life expectancy due to care being delivered by a consistent staff team who were punctual.
 

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.

Systems monitored staff delivery of care in line with each person’s care plans. Managers monitored the provider’s electronic care management system and were alerted to any missed care delivery tasks. The acting manager explained specific care tasks such as changing a person’s catheter bag were set up to prompt staff on the system and they were alerted if the activity had not been completed.
 

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

We found the outcomes of the MCA assessments conflicted with the description of some people’s mental capacity stated within their care records. However, staff confirmed they sought consent from people before providing care and support. Managers and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and had completed MCA assessments where needed. The registered manager agreed to review and implement their MCA processes and the training of staff who completed MCA assessments.