Flourish Healthcare and Support 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 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, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Assessments were kept under review and updated when circumstances changed. Information from people, families and health and social care professionals was used to adjust support arrangements where needed. Support records were person centred and reflected how a person wished to be supported. Staff had easy access to records and demonstrated they knew the people they supported well. People and their relatives told us overall they had been involved in assessment and reviews of their support needs. Records confirmed this. One relative told us, “Yes (I have been involved) when [person] first went to live there. I also attend meetings to look at if anything has changed and what can be done differently.”

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. Staff were supported through regular supervision and training to deliver care and support to people which was in line with good practice guidelines and standards. Managers kept up to date with current practice by networking with social and healthcare partners and seeking advice and training from the wider care sector. Records showed that support and treatment were reviewed regularly and adjusted when required. Learning from incidents and feedback was used to strengthen practice and reduce risks.

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 communicated concerns promptly and were supported by the management team to know when and how to involve other professionals and share information to support continuity. We received positive feedback from partners who worked with the service. One professional told us, “I experienced leadership which demonstrated a willingness to work together with outside agencies and a keenness to be able to demonstrate the provision that was being offered.”

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. Records showed that people had access to external professionals and where health concerns were noted these were followed up promptly. Support plans were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in health or support needs. Where patterns or risks were identified, actions were taken to promote safer routines and healthier outcomes. One relative told us, “The staff have encouraged my [relative] to eat better and have a more balanced fluid intake.”

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. Daily notes and records were completed to monitor people’s health and wellbeing and support records regularly updated. The provider regularly reviewed information from incidents, observations and feedback to identify learning. When issues occurred, managers acted to investigate, involve relevant professionals and adjust support if needed. Learning was shared with staff and used to strengthen practice and reduce recurrence.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were asked about their consent to care and support and their decisions recorded. People’s capacity to make decisions was reviewed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where people lacked capacity, decisions were made in people’s best interests. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Staff obtained people’s consent before providing care, and our observations showed that individuals were actively involved in everyday decisions about their support. One relative told us, “[Name of relative] can’t consent verbally but will make it known non-verbally if [person] doesn’t consent and staff will not do anything that [person] doesn’t want them to do.”