The Caring Company Rutland 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 50 (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 was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

An electronic system was used for care planning and risk assessment. Not all needs had been identified or planned for and managers had not yet fully familiarised themselves with the system so could not always access information easily.

While people and their relatives expressed overall satisfaction with the care and treatment, we found elements of care did not meet the expected standards.

Most people told us they were involved in the care planning process and staff understood their needs. One person said told us they had their care and support reviewed, they told us, “The carers 100% understand me, my daughter calls them ‘the angels”. However, nobody we spoke with had seen or had access to their care plan. There were no records of care and support reviews taking place. The provider told us they were addressing this and had taken action to review people with high risk or complex needs and planned to carry out reviews at a rate of 3 each week.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

We were not assured staff and leaders understood current legislation, national standards and evidence-based good practice guidance relevant to their service because staff did not have the training and support, they needed to meet people’s needs. Systems and processes to keep staff up to date were not effective.

The provider had introduced a quality compliance system including updated policies and staff training in May 2026. However, records did not evidence staff had accessed these policies and training, and staff had not been provided with supervision or had any competencies checked. The provider had developed an action plan to accelerate the delivery and implementation of these systems.

People’s nutritional and hydration were not clearly risk assessed or recorded in care plans. This included where people had complex nutritional needs and risks. The provider took immediate action to address this and reviewed all high-risk nutritional needs following our site visits.

People we spoke with told us staff understood and met their nutritional and hydration needs

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Systems and processes in place to share information with external health and social care professionals were not always effective because people’s current needs were not fully known to managers.

Communication systems within staff teams were limited. Staff meetings and supervisions had not been taking place. We received a limited response to our requests for staff feedback about their experiences of working at the service. As a result, we were unable to gather sufficient evidence to comment on staff views within this key question.

External professionals had concerns about how the service worked across teams. The local authority had presently cancelled their contract with the provider.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s health needs had not been comprehensively assessed or planned for. There was limited information to guide staff about specific conditions such as diabetes or dementia. Staff had received training about people’s specific conditions, but the majority had not.

Records showed staff had worked with externalhealthcare professionals. However, their recommendations were not always recorded within care records and risk assessments.

One person told us, “They are very good at what they do. It’s help for us both, I am getting stronger every day.”

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.

We could not be assured people’s expectations about the care they received were understood by staff and managers. Systems for monitoring the effectiveness of care and support were not effective. The provider was taking action to make improvements including reviewing peoples care packages, involving people in the care planning process and establishing a service users forum.

People we spoke with were positive about the care and support provided and felt it did meet their expectations.

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

People did not have their capacity to make decisions assessed. We could not be assured staff were providing care and support with lawful consent or were providing care and support in peoples best interests.

Care plans did not detail people’s capacity or ability to consent to care and support provided. There was no evidence people, or their representatives had been consulted or involved about their care and support. There was no evidence to ensure peoples wishes and views had been considered or care and support provided was in their best interest.

Not all staff had received training about consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

At the time of our assessment there was no one using the service who were subject to any community deprivation of liberty orders.

People we spoke with told us staff asked for their consent and offered choices when providing care and support.