Care Quality Services IOW

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. Prior to care commencing a senior staff member undertook an assessment with the person, their family members and any professionals involved in their care. Assessments considered all aspects of the person such as life and medical history, current medical needs, medication and personal care needs. Care plans were then developed to meet identified needs. A person said, “When the care plan was set up somebody did come and see me from the agency.”

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. Care plans and records of care provided reflected current legislation and best practice guidance. Care plans included information as to who was responsible for providing people with meals and reminders to leave additional drinks where appropriate. A person told us, “They [care staff] do meals for me and always wash their hands first, they are most particular about doing that. They always offer me choices and will leave me drinks as well.”

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 and office staff understood how to seek support from health and social care staff when required. Care staff said they were able to access up to date information about people using an electronic app on their phones and told us that they also received phone calls or could phone office staff and, other than the out of hours service, got a good response.

External health and social care professionals were less positive about the contact with office staff and felt that there was often a delay in receiving a response from the service. For example, one external professional said, “Communication and responses have been an issue lately and improvements in this space would be advantageous.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Information about people’s current and past medical history was included in care plans however, further guidance for staff to support them to identify early signs of deterioration and take any necessary action was not included. For example, a person was noted to have chronic kidney disease but there was no information about potential symptoms and what care staff should look out on the person’s care plan. Another person had a diagnosis of epilepsy and there was no detail about the type of seizures, factors that may increase the person’s risk of seizures and emergency actions care staff should take pending the arrival of paramedics.

Office staff were aware of how to access health and social care staff should there be a need.

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. The management team monitored people’s support and care to ensure this continued to meet their needs. People told us care staff had identified potential new medical needs. For example, a person said, “One of the carers gave me good advice to see a doctor because my leg was swollen. The carers are good at advising me if they notice anything different in my body appearance.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The registered manager, office and care staff understood their responsibilities in relation to mental capacity and consent and confirmed they had received training in relation to this.

Generally, information about people’s ability to make decisions about the care they were receiving was included within assessments. However, there were no decision specific mental capacity assessment for a person who the registered manager and the person’s care records showed lacked capacity to make decisions about their care.

Care staff confirmed they would always seek consent before providing care and would not continue to provide care if the person asked them not to. Care records reviewed showed that where people declined offered care this was respected by care staff. Most people confirmed they were asked for consent before care was provided. A person told us, “They [care staff] don’t always ask my consent but I would like them too sometimes.” Other people confirmed consent was gained saying for example, “They [care staff] do ask me for my consent before they do things and they understand my needs.”