Kope-Medics 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 inspection for this service. At this inspection, this key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We saw a care plan for a person who required additional support with moving and handling, however there was no accompanying risk assessment. We also saw in this care plan discrepancies in the information in relation to medicines, meaning it was not clear if the person had medicine administered to them as part of their care and support needs or not. These issues left people at risk of being supported by staff who were not properly informed on their care needs, and left people at risk of receiving inappropriate care. We brought these concerns to the attention of the management team, who quickly resolved the issues in the care plans. The registered manager told us people were visited in their homes prior to care being delivered to ensure the assessment of people’s needs is robust and accurate. People and their relatives told us the provider worked closely with them to assess people’s care and support needs.

The provider did not always plan or correctly document people’s care and treatment with them. We saw care plans that did not fully document peoples care and support needs. For example, one person who was at risk of choking had no speech and language risk assessment in place. Another care plan stated that a person was on end-of-life care when they were not. This put people at risk of being supported by staff who were not correctly informed of the care and treatment they required. We highlighted these issues with the management teams, and corrective action was immediately taken.

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 provider worked well with external services to ensure people were supported in schools and college settings. Care plans had enough information so people would not have to repeat information about their care needs to different services. A healthcare professional told us Kope-Medics Ltd would organise online meetings which would be used to facilitate training. They also said staff they engaged with appeared to be well organised and replied to emails in a timely manner.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives. People and their relatives told us staff encouraged people to do things for themselves where they could, like dressing and washing their hands. One person told us. “They encourage [relative] to be independent in toileting and self-care.” Another person said, “They do encourage [relative] to do things for themselves. I stipulated that they do help [relative] to do things rather than do it for them.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. We saw care plans which indicated people might be at risk of choking, but there were no accompanying speech and language therapy risk assessments. The lack of assessment risked staff being poorly informed of how to care for people who had a risk of choking and increased the risk of avoidable harm. This was raised with the management team, who reviewed and adjusted the care plans in question. People told us they did understand their care and support options, and they felt that staff supported them to achieve positive outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us staff always sought consent before delivering care and support, and they understood their rights to refuse care and treatment. One person told us, “[Staff] tell [relative] what they are going to do, and they ask for permission.” Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were able to explain their understanding of this. A member of staff told us, the act was for, “Making decisions on the behalf of a person who lacked capacity, always prioritising their best interests.” Some staff had received the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism. Staff who had not completed this training were scheduled to so in the near future. Staff had also received Safeguarding Children Level 2 training, and training in Consent. These training courses were completed yearly.