Apace Support Services Limited

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 75 (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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care plans were in place for people which set out their needs, and how to meet them. Plans were of a good standard, detailed and person-centred. They covered needs including personal care, eating and drinking and equality and diversity. People had been involved in developing their care plans to help ensure they reflected what was important to the person. A relative said, “Oh yeah, they came round and did a care plan.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care 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.

The provider was able to provide evidence-based care and treatment. Policies were in line with national good practice and care was given in a person-centred way, in line with the person’s wishes, and people were involved in their assessment of need. Support was provided in line with equalities legislation.

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 so far, they had not worked much across different teams and services. This was because they only had 2 people using the service, both of whom were privately funded. However, the registered manager was aware of the process for involving other services and agencies if required. The provider worked with its staff team, people who used the service and relatives to help ensure needs were met.

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.

The registered manager told us that people’s family took care of arranging support from health care professionals, but added they could provide this support in the future if required. Care plans and risk assessments covered people’s health needs, including specific healthcare conditions people had.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care 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.
People’s care was monitored to help improve outcomes. Support was monitored continuously through daily notes and other records as appropriate, such as what the person had to eat and drink and what elements of personal care were given. People were able to provide feedback on the support they received to help improve outcomes for them.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were able to consent to their care. The provider carried out mental capacity assessments with people, and both people using the service at the time of inspection had full mental capacity. Staff told us they always sought consent from people before providing care. People had signed consent forms to agree to the provision of care in line with their assessed needs.