Zi Mat 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 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.

The provider carried out regular care reviews, however, these did not identify where people’s needs had changed. For example, one person’s moving and handling risk assessment said they were mobile with aids, but on the day of inspection we were told that person is unable to walk. Another person’s care plan documented they required support from 2 staff to transfer using a hoist, however, the provider confirmed they no longer use this equipment and were supported by 1 staff member. This meant people’s needs were not routinely assessed, and clear guidance on how to support people was not available to staff. However, staff knew people’s needs well, so, people received the right care and support.

We received mixed feedback from people on how they were involved in their care plan, comments included, “I believe I have a care plan” and “I was visited to set up a care plan, not updated yet.” Relatives told us “I am heavily involved and happy with the care [person] is receiving, one of us is always there. Care plans in place and do get updated.”

Care plans contained people’s preferences and where possible these were considered. For example, people were asked if they preferred male or female care staff, and these preferences were usually respected. One person told us, “I was asked if I want male or female carers.” Another told us, “I chose to have female carers.”

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 supported people with a rare neurological condition. Managers attended a specialist conference to gain a deeper understanding of the condition. Following this, the provider developed a presentation for staff, which included information on the nature of the condition, common physical symptoms, how the condition progresses and the impact it can have on daily living. However, this learning had not been incorporated into people’s care plans.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff supported people to access local services such as day centres.

The provider had systems in place for staff to communicate with each other to ensure everyone was up to date with any changes. Staff told us, “We have a great team, [manager] keeps me updated, [person] sometimes relays information to me. Family members relay information, interact and keep us updated.” Relatives told us they were kept well informed by staff. One relative told us, “We are fully involved with the agency and carers, full family involvement.”

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.

People received care and support that promoted positive outcomes and encouraged independence. Staff encouraged people to do as much as they were able to for themselves and adapted support in line with people’s changing needs. For example, 1 person initially required 2 members of staff to support with mobility. As their mobility improved, the support needed reduced to 1 staff member.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care and treatment were not routinely or continuously monitored to improve outcomes, as care plan audits had not identified the contradictions we found during the inspection.

Some people’s care plans had not been updated to reflect their current needs or reviewed following changes in their care. Review meetings took place with people, however, these reviews did not always identify changes in needs and did not consistently document the actions required following the review.

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

The provider completed mental capacity assessments for all people using the service, this is not working in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Mental capacity assessments did not contain sufficient information on what was discussed and how best interest decisions were made. The provider had not completed a mental capacity assessment for the use of a lap belt. This was discussed during inspection, and the provider assured us they would take action to address this.

People told us staff gained consent before carrying out care, comments included, “Consent always asked before any personal care given” and “[Staff] always ask my consent and explain.”