Dorcas Care Ltd Also known as Sparcells Office

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 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.

Leaders thoroughly assessed people’s needs prior to them being supported by the service. This information was transferred to people’s care plans. Relatives told us the assessment process was thorough and explained how they ‘instantly warmed’ to the registered manager. One relative said, “This assessment process gave me confidence that the care provided would be safe, respectful, and tailored to my [family member’s] specific needs.”

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’s care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained up to date. People’s relatives confirmed this. Leaders kept up to date with assessment frameworks and legislation to ensure they remained compliant with best practice guidance and legislation.

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.

Leaders met regularly to enable them to both have oversight of the service and to communicate important information. Leaders felt they worked well and effectively together. There were processes to support effective team working such as supervisions and the recording of care being delivered.

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 had information in their care plans to support healthy lives. One relative told us, “[Registered manager] encourages her to eat and drink appropriately, remind her to take her medications safely, and help with mobility exercises when needed”. The registered manager told us, “Health promotion means a lot to me, it is not just healthy eating and exercise, it includes mental, environmental, looking at all components of daily living. It is about giving resources and health promotion without telling them what they can or can’t do.”

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.

People told us the registered manager supported them to achieve good outcomes. One relative commented that their family member’s health had improved since they began receiving support from the service. Leaders told us how they introduced monitoring charts when this was identified as a need. For example, they previously supported a person who was prone to water infections, so monitored the person’s fluid intake to reduce the risk of these infections.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent. One person had not signed their care and support plan, and this was instead signed by the person’s relative.

Leaders told us this was due to a language barrier. However, they had not ensured this information was translated into a language the person understood. Therefore, the person could not make an informed decision about whether to consent to the care arrangement. This meant the person was receiving care without any formal consent agreement. We raised this with leaders who told us they would address this.

However, leaders had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Other people had valid consent agreements in their care plans.