CaringSmart Ltd - Dorset

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 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 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 and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

Assessments were completed before care commenced, and people told us staff had spent considerable time with them to ensure the support provided met their individual requirements. A person recalled, “They came in the first place and spent a long time with me, asking absolutely everything. They are very thorough.”

Staff had immediate access to information about people’s needs via the provider’s electronic care planning system. People’s care and support needs were updated as necessary. Records completed by staff accurately reflected the care people received and were person-centred.

Management and staff told us any changes to care provision were made in a timely manner and advice was sought from professionals as required. This included asking an occupational therapist to assess a person for any equipment they may need to enable them to remain living in their own home.

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 had been actively involved in developing and reviewing their care plans and assessments. This person-centred approach enabled tailored care that reflected people’s unique circumstances and wishes. A relative told us, “They know he has dementia, they understand”.

Staff worked together with external health professionals to ensure care aligned with current best practices. The service’s policies and procedures provided clear guidance to staff. Regular training and supervision reinforced the importance of adhering to these policies and best practice.

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.

People felt confident their information had been shared appropriately and securely with relevant healthcare professionals, such as their GP or community nurse. Staff maintained records of the care and support provided, which could be shared with external professionals if needed. Feedback from staff and leadership highlighted effective teamwork and clear communication within the service, supporting a consistent approach to meeting people’s needs. Partner organisations confirmed the service proactively shared information and worked collaboratively. Care records demonstrated any contact with health and social care professionals and discussions with relatives.

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.

Care and support plans were clear, accessible, and regularly updated to reflect people’s individual health and wellbeing needs. Where people required assistance with food and drink, detailed guidance was in place, including for those with special dietary requirements. The use of an electronic records system allowed information about people’s health needs to be shared efficiently and comprehensively among staff.

People were supported to manage their health proactively, with the service encouraging independence and promoting overall well-being. A member of staff told us they, “Promote people’s independence by encouraging them to do as much for themselves as they want. For example, picking their choice of clothing or shoes.”

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.

People shared positive examples of how their lives had improved since receiving care and support from the service. Regular reviews of people’s care and support needs enabled people and their relatives to give feedback and make any changes to the support received. Management told us they phoned people regularly or visited them to monitor the quality of the service. One person told us, “The manager phones me up at least once a week to ask how I’m doing. She makes you feel special and loved. If I’ve got questions or queries, I can talk them through with her.” This ensured the person’s wellbeing and enabled additional support to be offered as required.

During the site visit, people received a friendly, caring approach when they telephoned the office. People were asked about their well-being and general conversation followed. This demonstrated people’s familiarity with the management team.

Feedback from staff confirmed a strong commitment to improving outcomes for people, such as ensuring people had enough to drink to maintain fluid intake, this was especially important during the hot summer to make sure people remained well hydrated.

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

The service had informed people about their rights in relation to consent and consistently respected these when delivering person-centred care. People’s rights had been upheld, and where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, mental capacity assessments were carried out in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities in supporting people to make informed choices about their care and treatment. Records did not always show that consent was sought appropriately when accessing care records. We discussed this with the provider who arranged a meeting with the persons involved to ensure consent was given.

Staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and were aware of the main principles. They told us they always assumed capacity unless a formal assessment determined otherwise.