Care Never Sleeps 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 71 (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. The relatives of people who used the service told us they and their family member were involved in the planning of their care and that this was regularly reviewed; the records we viewed confirmed this. One relative told us the provider regularly sought feedback on the care delivered and made suggestions to continually improve the quality of care received.

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. People told us the care they received was of good quality, effective and met their needs. We saw from care plans that what mattered to people was recorded with emphasis placed on this. People’s nutritional and hydration needs had been assessed and met.

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. Due to the small nature of the service, there was little need to work across many services however we saw that when this was needed, this was completed. One relative gave us an example of this and told us staff were excellent at communicating with other health professionals when their family member’s health deteriorated. Staff agreed they worked well as a team with one telling us, “The service focuses on person-centred care, offers good training, and has a supportive team. Communication between staff is excellent.”

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. People told us this and the records we viewed confirmed that. For example, one relative said, “All staff behave professionally and are able to oversee my [family member’s] medication and healthcare needs and bring anything that requires a medical opinion to my attention.” The second relative who provided us with feedback agreed.

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. We saw from records that the provider attended each person who used the service every month to complete an audit of the service with formal reviews of care taking place every 6 months. One relative also told us the provider informally and regularly sought their feedback on the service. Formal questionnaires were also completed annually.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment; people told us this and records we viewed confirmed this. For example, consent was considered throughout the care plans we viewed, and one relative told us, for example, “When moving [family member], staff sought their permission before doing so, explaining how and why they needed to move them.” We also saw that formal consent was in place. However, whilst the service had formally assessed people’s capacity to make decisions, as required, around their care needs, this hadn’t been fully completed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was because assessments of capacity had not been completed for each separate decision. We raised this with the registered manager who provided assurances that this process would be amended in line with legislation.