Age UK Northamptonshire Also known as Age Concern Northamptonshire

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to need for consent.

This service scored 54 (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. Care plans were task focused and did not contain sufficient information to ensure staff knew how people preferred to be supported. People’s relatives told us they and their relative were involved in the assessment of their care needs and staff knew them well but there was no evidence of this held in people’s files. Staff told us they felt they had enough information to support people and had access to people’s care plans. The service had recently transferred to a digital care records system and the information that had been transferred to this system was limited. The previous system contained more information, but this was still task focused.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People’s relatives told us they were involved in the assessment of people’s needs. However, there was no evidence of their involvement in the care records reviewed. Staff did not have access to information about how people’s health conditions affected them or how to recognise a deterioration in these conditions. Staff supported people with preparing food and drink but there was minimal information to inform staff how this was to be done. The previous records system used by the service had some information about a person’s likes and dislikes for breakfast. As the care records system was newly in place, people and their relatives did not yet have access to view their plans and notes. Nationally recognised tools, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening tool and Waterlow scale to assess risk of developing pressure ulcers, had not been used.

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 Registered Manager told us they work with the Local Authority where they were no longer able to meet people’s needs to ensure a smooth transition between services for people. People’s relatives told us they felt staff and other services worked well together to meet people’s needs.

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. Care plans were task focused and contained very little information about people’s health needs, how these affected them and what staff should be aware of. Staff were supporting one person with food and drink but there was no information on their nutritional needs, likes or dislikes in their plan. Staff knew people well which enabled them to identify when they were becoming unwell.

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. People’s care plans had not been reviewed to ensure they were meeting people’s needs. There was no evidence that desired outcomes for care had been discussed with people. Feedback from people and their relatives had not been gathered consistently. This had been requested just prior to the inspection and was received whilst evidence was being gathered. Staff told us they got feedback directly from people whilst they were supporting them.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. People had not signed to show they consented to their care plans. The Registered Manager told us that people had asked the service to liaise with a relative but there was no evidence of this. The Registered Manager understood the principles of the mental capacity act but these were not followed in practice. A person’s relative had Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, however, as the person receiving care was said to have mental capacity to make their own decision, this was not registered with the Office of the Public guardian and therefore they did not have legal powers to consent for the person. The impact on people was low as staff knew how to seek consent from people when they were delivering care and knew what to do if someone were to refuse assistance.