Conscience Care 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 since its registration. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (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 were effective because they discussed their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they started using the service. The provider told us they or a senior member of the team would meet with the person and, where appropriate, their family to discuss their needs. Where care was arranged by the local authority, a discussion took place to ensure the service could meet the needs of the person. Care plans and risk assessments had been started at this point and developed over time.

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 and, where appropriate, their families were involved in creating care plans and risk assessments. The provider and staff told us they worked with people following good practice guidance. This included working to support people’s nutritional needs, mobility and general wellbeing. Evidence-based care underpinned policies and procedures within the service.

The provider did not always work across teams and services to support people. They did not always ensure accuracy when sharing the assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People’s information and care needs were shared easily as the provider used an electronic care planning system. However, this information was conflicting at times, therefore there was a risk of inaccurate details being shared.

The service worked with external health and social care professionals. The provider understood the importance of working together with other professionals.

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 were supported to live well at home for as long as possible. Staff were passionate about the care and support they gave. A member of staff told us, “It is important to support people to be independent because it boosts their confidence and sense of achievement,the pure joy on their faces when they complete a task independently says it all.”

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, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care was not always reviewed as planned and this meant there was a risk it was not consistent with good outcomes. The provider did not have a formal system for recording care plan reviews and variations in the content of care plans meant opportunities for effective monitoring could be missed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s decisions and consent was not always recorded.

People’s consent to their care was not always recorded, the provider told us everyone receiving a service could consent to their care. However, consent was not recorded within care documentation, and this meant the provider could not be assured people were giving informed consent to the service being delivered. The provider did not ensure consent was received from people to receive calls during this assessment. This had caused unnecessary frustration and distress for people.

However, staff had received training and understood the principles of consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The provider had a policy and procedure to ensure they could comply with the MCA when required. Staff told us consent was important when supporting people and providing care.