Arca Healthcare 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 service. This key question has been rated requires improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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, while they discussed people’s needs with relatives, this did not always result in people’s care plans, risk assessments and daily care records containing clear information.

Care plans and risk assessments did not always contain relevant information about people’s health, mobility and safety needs to enable them to receive care or treatment which provided good outcomes. For example, where people had identified communication, health and mobility needs, they did not always have a care plan or assessment which adequately provided guidance to staff on how they could support people to meet these needs. This meant people were at risk of their needs not being clearly known and met by staff.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always reviewed and updated following safety events in which people sustained harm. People and relatives were involved in the care planning process of people receiving support from the service.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment, in a way which was important to them.

Care records were not always in-line with evidence-based good practice guidance. While some information within people’s care plans made reference to being based on guidance from external healthcare professionals, where safety incidents occurred which might have justified assessment and guidance from external healthcare professionals, this support was not always sought. This meant people were at risk of their care and treatment not being delivered to them in ways which reflected their identified needs.

Staff understood people’s preferences, including how they asked for food and drinks, and relatives said staff supported their relative to access amenities within their communities.

The provider did not always work well across teams to support people.

While staff meetings took place, there was no information which showed what was discussed at these meetings. While the service worked in consultation with some external services, opportunities for greater multidisciplinary working were sometimes missed.

People, relatives and staff told us the provider communicated with them very well.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

People’s care records did not always contain relevant information needed to ensure people could be supported to positively manage their health and wellbeing. We found information relating to people’s health conditions and needs did not always contain the guidance staff needed so they could support people to live healthy lives. For example, people living with health conditions which affected how they were able to mobilise, did not have a care plan in place which directed staff how to support them. This meant people were at risk of their health needs not always being met.

Some staff had not received training relevant to some people’s health needs. However, staff demonstrated an awareness of the practical support they provided people based on some aspects of their health needs. For example, staff told us how they supported people with their mental and physical health needs which mitigated risks associated with these conditions. This was supported by the feedback we received from people and relatives.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent.

People’s care records were not effectively monitored and reviewed by the provider. In the absence of effective care plan and safety events audits, the provider was unaware of the concerns we identified regarding the lack of relevant information in people’s care records and people’s care and health outcomes. This meant there was a risk the care and treatment people received from staff may not always meet their needs.

People’s care was monitored by the provider undertaking visits of people’s homes, telephone calls to people and relatives and sending satisfaction surveys to assess staff practice and to seek people’s and relatives’ feedback.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The service did not always consider the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when supporting people. Decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions were not in place for people identified as lacking mental capacity regarding their care arrangements. This meant people were at risk of their rights under the MCA not being respected.

Staff training records showed staff received MCA training and staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of the need to seek consent from people.