Multiple Care Solutions Ltd

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 good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

The registered manager told us they carried out an assessment of people’s needs prior to the provision of care and records confirmed this. The assessment involved the person and their relatives where appropriate, so it captured what was important to them. People confirmed they were involved in the assessment process, a person told us, “They came here, I told them my needs and what I wanted. [Registered manager] came and did the assessment.”

Care plans and risk assessments were then developed by the registered manager based upon the assessment. We saw care plans in place which covered needs including communication, mobility and medicines. However, there had been a recent change in a person’s needs and the care plan had not been updated to reflect this. We discussed this with the manager. After our site visit they confirmed they had met again with the person to review their care plan, and they sent us the revised version which covered the change in need.

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.

The provider was able to provide evidence-based care and treatment. Policies were in line with national good practice and care was given in a person-centred way, in line with the persons wishes, and they were involved in their assessment of need. A person told us, “My carer is good at what they do.”

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.

We found that the service worked well with staff and people to deliver effective care. As mentioned, people were involved in the assessment of their needs. Information about people’s needs was clearly communicated to staff. A member of staff told us, “I read the care plan before I met the person."

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.

As the service only had one person using it at the time of inspection who received support with personal care, it was hard to say if the provider was supporting them to live a healthier life. Especially as the person had full capacity to make all decisions about their care, including issues related to their health and lifestyle. However, there was no evidence to suggest the provider was not supporting people to live healthy lives.

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.

The provider had systems in place for monitoring the care provided. Daily records were kept of what support was provided on each shift, and these were reviewed by the registered manager. In addition, the registered manager had regular contact with people to check they were happy with the support provided. People confirmed this.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were able to consent to their care. Their capacity to consent to decisions was assessed during the initial pre-care assessment of needs. There was a policy on consent to help guide practice. Staff told us they always sought people’s consent and permission before providing care. One staff member said, “I ask for permission and mention what I am going to do [when giving support with personal care].” Another member of staff said, “I always seek their consent before I do anything.” A person told us, “When [care staff] come, I tell them everything I want to be done and what I want to wear.”