Arm2Arm Support 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 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, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People told us their needs were fully assessed prior to them receiving care. One person said, “The care plan is a good reflection of my needs, it was put together by me and [manager] and is updated”. We saw evidence of assessments taking place which were detailed and this information was transferred to people’s care plans.

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 their care plans were relevant and up to date which meant this was evidence based as it was in line with their needs. The manager told us they kept up to date with legislation and best practice guidelines. They said, “We receive alerts from CQC, NICE (The National Institute for Care Excellence) and we are a member of the care networks. We use the ‘Homecare Association’ and have a membership, which we use for the training of staff”.

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. Staff told us they worked well together. Comments included, “We support one another, share information quickly, and collaborate efficiently to deliver safe, reliable care”, and “I feel the team coordinate care well, with staff supporting each other where required.” We saw evidence of regular team meetings which demonstrated effective discussions among the team.

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’s care plans contained information to help staff support them to live healthier lives. For example, one person’s care plan included information about supporting them with exercises following a health professional’s guidance. We saw evidence of care staff supporting with these in the person’s care records. Staff told us they monitored people’s food and fluid intake where required to support their health and care records supported this.

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. Staff recorded where they had supported people within care notes. Staff said, “I regularly review [people’s] care plans and risk assessments to monitor their clinical progress. When there's a risk of malnutrition or dehydration, staff track food and fluid intake using charts, observe weight changes, and report concerns to the manager.” People told us staff supported them to achieve positive outcomes. One relative commented, “Yes, that’s the aim of the game.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s consent was sought before the service delivered care, and the manager explained how they would follow the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) (2005) where people lacked capacity. Staff had completed training in the MCA and had a good understanding of this. Staff told us, “I always assume a person has capacity unless evidence suggests otherwise, support their decision-making, and follow the best-interest process if they lack capacity”, and “My training is put into practice through taking a best interest approach to clients’ needs and care, also by regularly reviewing the client’s level of capacity.”