CVB Homecare 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

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 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 ensured that people’s care and treatment were effective. They reviewed and discussed people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

We saw that assessments had been completed. For example, individuals’ communication needs had been identified and documented.

People and professionals did not raise any concerns.

This indicated that people’s needs were understood and supported effectively, with appropriate information available to guide care delivery.

The provider planned and delivered care and treatment in partnership with people, taking into account their preferences and what mattered most to them in their daily lives.

We observed that staff had received training in dysphagia, and detailed photographic and written records were maintained to monitor food and fluid intake. This supported the management of risks associated with malnutrition and dehydration.

Support plans identified that 1 person required a texture-modified diet. However, accessible, person-specific guidance for staff regarding the required food consistencies was not always available within the care planning documentation we reviewed. When this was raised, the registered manager advised this information was held within the person’s home.

People and professionals did not raise any concerns.

The provider worked effectively across teams and services to support people. They ensured that people only needed to share their story once by sharing assessments of need when individuals moved between different services, supporting continuity of care.

The provider and care staff worked collaboratively with external healthcare professionals, such as Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) teams. Referrals were made in a timely way, and joint working supported the achievement of positive outcomes for people by ensuring their needs were appropriately assessed and met.

Professionals told us this partnership working was effective.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff encouraged people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

Staff worked with people to help them live healthier lives, for example 1 person completing physiotherapy exercises daily. This exercise plan had been developed in collaboration with a healthcare professional, and staff supported the individual to follow it to maintain and improve their mobility.

Staff told us they felt confident in supporting people to manage their health needs and understood the importance of promoting independence and wellbeing as part of their role.

People and professionals did not raise concerns.

The provider used recognised assessment tools principles to support the assessment of people’s needs. Staff used appropriate approaches to monitor care and identify risks. Staff demonstrated the skills and knowledge required to carry out these responsibilities. For example, daily care records included monitoring of skin integrity and identification of potential risks, such as skin breakdown, which supported timely intervention.

People and professionals did not raise any concerns.

This meant that people’s needs were being monitored in practice.

The provider failed to consistently work in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). For example, 1 person’s record stated the person could, “Make simple choices such as food and drink but does not have capacity to understand risk and harm.” However, the provider failed to act and undertake assessments in line with the MCA. This meant the provider could not be assured decisions made on the person’s behalf would always be in their best interest and the least restrictive option. In response to our feedback the registered manager took immediate action to begin implementing the necessary assessments and documentation.

However, staff had received training in MCA awareness, and people and professionals, did not raise any concerns