Parry Healthcare Wiltshire

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 Requires Improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 and this was agreed by people. The registered manager told us that they or the location manager visited people each month to discuss their needs and assess any changes that may be required. Staff told us that if people’s needs change the care plan is updated and staff are prompted to read the care plan. People told us that they saw the location manager regularly. However, one person said they would like their needs reviewed.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care plans contained details to ensure that people were supported in line with their needs. A person who required support with their communication had details within their care plan of how to support them with their communication via the use of assistive technology. Staff told us they received training such as diabetes training to meet people’s specific needs.

However, feedback we received from people showed that care provided was not always in line with people’s wishes. For example, one relative told us that sometimes staff appeared frustrated with the person they were supporting. We were told they did not feel that staff treated their home as they would their own. Another relative told us that sufficient time was not taken to communicate with the person. When we asked if the person was involved in creating their care plan we were told that ‘I don’t get involved in that at all.’ preferences. Another person said they felt there was ‘a lack of co-ordination’ and ‘I would like to see them be more pro-active’. This meant that people’s support was not always delivered in a way that met people’s needs and preferences.

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 shared assessments with other healthcare professionals and worked with the local authority to assess and review people’s needs. We were told by other professionals that the provider communicated well with them. Staff told us that communication within the team was good and effective. They told us that the location manager was easy to talk to and when there is a problem managers sort it immediately.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. However, staff did not always support people to live healthier lives. The registered manager told us that they speak with people to offer them information on their medicines and provide information leaflets to support understanding of skin integrity.

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 andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider offered people the opportunity to complete surveys to gain feedback and make improvements. However, some people told us they had not received a survey. The location manager told us they visited people regularly to speak with them about their care. However, these visits did not identify or resolve all areas of support of concerns.

The provider maintained a complaints log and had addressed these complaints. However, people told us that sometimes these actions did not prevent the problem from happening again. One person told us that they had spoken to the provider and raised complaints but ‘that doesn’t solve it.’ This meant that people’s outcomes were not always positive, and improvements had not always happened for them.

The provider told people about their rights around consent but did not always respect these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. There were records to gain people’s consent for their care and treatment when they were first supported by the provider. However, one consent form we saw had not been fully completed. This meant that the provider could not be sure if people were giving consent. Staff told us they asked people what they wanted and if they were happy before they supported them. Some people told us that they were asked before support was provided. However, some people told us that they were not asked for consent by staff in areas such as administering medicines