Efficiency Health and Homecare Services - Malmesbury

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service since it registered 05 January 2024. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the provider did not always ensure they had accurate and updated documents in place or enable people to be involved in their care.

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.

People told us staff always spoke with them during their visit to ensure what they were doing was correct for them.

Staff told us how they provided person centred care and involved people during their visits.

The provider did not always ensure documents contained the correct information to ensure they could provide person centred care.

The provider had recorded a complaint regarding personal care but had not ensured that staff were trained to provide personal care correctly. We reviewed 7 people’s care plans and found that all lacked details regarding how to support them fully with personal care. This meant that people were not receiving person centred care and treatment.

Some people’s medical conditions were not accurately detailed and recorded in care plans. This meant people’s medical needs were not planned for in a person centred way.

Less than half of the staff team had completed training in providing personal care.
 

Care plans did not contain details of how people were involved in the review of their care. Although people’s care plans were reviewed by staff these reviews did not always identify changes that were required. This meant that the provider could not be assured that the care provided was correct and in line with people’s preferences.

Staff visits to people were arranged in advance. However, people told us they were not always aware of which staff were coming or if they would be late. People had access to a telephone number for the service. However, the provider had experienced some technical issues with this meaning contacting them was more difficult during this time. The provider continuity plan did not identify other options in the event of this or other adverse events such as power cuts occurring

People did not always know how to access their care plans, One out of the four people we spoke to who used the service told us they did not know where it was stored. The provider did not always ensure they had a record of consent in place regarding people’s personal information. Care plans did not contain enough information regarding people’s communication needs. This meant the provider could not ensure that staff communicated with people in the best and preferred manner.

The provider’s website did not contain accurate information. A telephone number provided on the website was for a staff member who no longer worked for the provider. The registration details for the previous manager were still on display in the registered office. This person had de-registered in 2024. This meant that information on display was not current and accurate.

One person said, “I am happy with what the carers do, they try to give me regular carers. I have raised that staff have been late for visits and I have been listened to’.

We were told that staff treated people kindly and asked consent before providing support with personal care and meal choices. The provider did not always involve people in their care. One person out of four people we spoke to said they had not seen their care plan. A complaint had been recorded on the provider’s complaint log and that actions had been identified. However, we did not see evidence that a written response had been supplied to the complainant in line with the provider complaints policy. This meant that the provider had failed to keep the complainant updated and aware of the outcome of their complaint.

Another person complained that staff did not know what to do when they had a seizure. The provider actioned this by taking the member of staff off of the schedule to ensure safety to the person. This was not monitored and there was no information of how this complaint was rectified or what measures were put in place as a result. This meant that people’s concerns were at risk of not being resolved.

One person we spoke to told us that often their support was late arriving and they did not receive a call to let them know

The provider had an equality and diversity policy that staff had access to. People were able to call the service if they wished to change the plan of care that day.

The provider did not ensure all staff were trained in equality and diversity. People’s preferences were not documented clearly. Care plans did not contain sufficient information to support people who may display behaviours that could challenge. This left people at risk of discrimination and inequality.

Only 1 of the care plans we viewed contained details of plans, goals and outcomes. One person was at risk of a medical condition developing. There were no plans or guidance in the care plan to ensure staff knew how to support the person to prevent this condition developing further. This meant people were at risk of deteriorating health and there was no guidance in place for staff to support people to reach their goals. End of life documentation was not easily accessible to staff or other professionals. This meant that people’s end of life wishes may not have been adhered to.