Independent Support & Care 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 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care plans were in place for people. These set out people’s needs and how to meet those needs. However, we did find some minor instances of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in care plans. For example, the care plan for one person said due to their dementia they had forgotten how to speak English in one section, and in another section said staff should communicate with the person only in English. There was no evidence that these inconsistencies had adversely affected people’s care. We discussed this issue with the registered manager wo told us they would check all care plans to ensure consistency throughout.

Care were person-centred and people had been involved in developing them. A person told us, “I’ve had a care plan for years so they [the provider] just adapted that. It has in it what I want.” A relative said, “They came and did an assessment.” Plans covered areas such as medicine, health care and mobility. They were subject to review which meant they were able to reflect people’s needs as they changed over time.

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 person’s wishes, and people were involved in their assessment of need. People told us their care was provided in line with their wishes. One person said, “They [staff] do all the tasks they are supposed to.”

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 provider worked with staff and other services, such as the local authority, to help support people. Regular staff meetings were held. These enabled staff to discuss ways in which people could be best supported. The provider worked with other agencies involved in the provision of care to meet people’s 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.

The service worked with people to promote their health and wellbeing. Where necessary they liaised with other health and social care providers. For example, they contacted a person’s GP to arrange a referral to the Wheelchair Services Team for the person. People told us staff supported them to live healthier lives. One person said, “They [staff] help me with my exercises.”

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.

People’s care was monitored to help improve outcomes. Support was monitored continuously through daily notes and other records as appropriate. People were able to provide feedback on the support they received to help improve outcomes for them. People told us the care they received was good. A relative told us, “The carer is very good, I am very happy. They know what they are doing.”

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. People told us they were consulted by staff. One person said, “I tell them [staff] what to do.” The same person added, “Yes, they do seek consent. They will always take the lead from me.” Staff told us they always asked for permission before providing support. Care plans had been drawn up with the involvement of people and their relatives and the had signed consent forms to agree to the provision of care in line with their care plans. Where people lacked the capacity to consent to care, mental capacity assessments had been carried out, for example, in relation to support with personal care. However, there was not always a best interest decision recorded after the completion of the mental capacity assessment, although we found no evidence that this had adversely affected care. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would address this.