Andrusida Care - Hampshire

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 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 58 (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 was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We could not be assured people’s needs were assessed effectively. For example, 1 person was on medicines for a medical condition and was prescribed a number of pain medicines. The registered manager was unable to tell us why the person required the pain medicines and what health conditions these related to. No pain management plan was in place to ensure staff would have all the information needed to understand the person’s support needs. For one person living with a learning disability and autism their care documentation did not detail the support they needed with daily living to remain as independent as possible. This meant all needs relating to people’s care had not been identified to ensure they would receive appropriate support to meet all their needs.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had processes in place for staff to report incidents and near misses. This included reviewing and learning from incidents and adjusting people’s care accordingly to keep them safe. Staff confirmed they would report any concerns to the office straight away.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. The registered manager told us, they worked closely with many health professionals, including social workers, occupational therapists, community nurses and doctors. For example, if a person needed an increase in their care package they would contact the local authority and worked with them to meet people’s needs and to improve outcomes for people.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider had processes in place for staff to report incidents and near misses. This included reviewing and learning from incidents and adjusting people’s care accordingly to keep them safe. Staff confirmed they would report any concerns to the office straight away.

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. Staff recorded details of the care and support provided during each care visit. However, we received no evidence of review records or care plans and risk assessment updates that showed people had reviews with the provider to ensure care plans and assessments were kept current and reflective of people’s needs.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. People told us staff sought their consent before delivering care. Staff had a good knowledge around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how to practically apply this in their everyday roles. Records for 1 person stated they had full capacity to make decisions which the registered manager agreed with. However, we found records from the provider following a quality assurance survey that stated this person did not have capacity to make decisions. We asked the registered manager to confirm this person’s capacity, they did not confirm their capacity to us. This meant we could not be assured people’s capacity to consent were always accurately recorded.