Ontime Response Healthcare Ltd Norfolk

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 63 (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 not fully reviewed regularly, and care plans we reviewed could not evidence involvement of people or their representative in the reviews. This meant they did not always reflect peoples current care and support needs. We found several discrepancies. The registered manager said they reviewed care plans every 6 months or when someone’s needs changed but we reviewed a care plan that was last reviewed in July 2025, however, their needs had changed and the care plan was not updated to reflect this. We discussed this with the provider, and they had plans to rectify it promptly.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including current evidence-based good practice and standards. People did not have care plans in place for specific health conditions. A person that was diabetic did not have a care plan in place ensuring staff knew the risks and signs of concerns with diabetes. It did not record how their diabetes was managed. We made the registered manager aware of this, and they created a diabetes care plan and ensured it was shared with the staff.

However, records showed people’s nutrition and hydration was monitored. Relatives we spoke with felt care was delivered appropriately and safely and it included what was important and mattered to people. A relative told us, “They know just how to do things, for example, [Relative’s] pillows and how [Relative] likes them placed.”

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. There was a positive working relationship within the staff team and that was noted from feedback from healthcare professionals. A healthcare professional told us “[Registered manager] is very open to feedback, and I have a good relationship with them.” There was evidence of Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings being conducted to support peoples care and support needs.

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. A person’s care plan we reviewed recorded the importance of supporting that person to stand and walk a few steps on every visit that was carried out by staff. Records showed the service supported people by referring them to Occupational Therapists when there had been a deterioration in their health to enable them to receive appropriate support. A healthcare professional told us “Ontime are currently encouraging [person] to go out into the community with support to improve their mental wellbeing and live a healthier lifestyle.”

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. We found 1 incident where a person’s health should have been monitored more closely using appropriate clinical tools.

However, the registered manager gave us examples of situations where they had monitored and improved outcomes for people using the service by ensuring they received care from an alternative provider that could meet the needs of a person more appropriately by raising concerns for this person. This was evidenced in feedback from a healthcare professional to the registered manager about their “persistence and commitment.”

The provider did not always assess people’s mental capacity when appropriate around all decisions related to their care and treatment. We identified mental capacity assessments were conducted around people being able to manage their medication although the assessments did not evidence clearly how judgements were made. They did not record questions asked and people’s responses. There were no other capacity assessments conducted on specific decisions relating to a person’s care and treatments needs.

However, when we spoke to the registered manager, they gave assurances on their ability to assess people’s capacity and identified it was a lack of recording and planned to rectify the issue. People that were able to consent had clear consent forms in place that were signed and care notes evidenced that staff obtained consent before supporting people.