Best Care Co

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 good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 support was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before care started and reviewed using a comprehensive electronic care record system. Assessments covered multiple care domains, including physical health, mental health, mobility, falls risk, skin integrity, hydration, communication needs and social history.

Care plans included clear guidance for people with complex needs, such as dementia, anxiety or sensory impairment, to ensure care staff understood how to support them safely and respectfully.

Risk assessments were detailed and specific, with clear management plans to reduce identified risks. Care plans were usually reviewed every 12 weeks, with daily care notes reviewed in real time by senior staff to identify changes in need. Where reviews were overdue, the provider had clear plans in place to complete these, including arranging meetings with families or incorporating reviews into hospital discharge planning.

Managers had good oversight of assessments and used system alerts to identify emerging risks or overdue reviews.

Relatives told us they felt involved in assessments and care planning and described information as “very clear and informative” and care as “considerate”. They said staff understood and encouraged people’s independence and did not rush care.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective and based on best practice and current guidance.

Care and treatment were delivered in line with recognised guidance and professional input was sought. The service worked closely with health professionals, including GPs, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, district nurses and mental health teams. Care plans reflected professional advice, for example by incorporating physiotherapy exercises, specialist equipment and behaviour support plans. Policies relating to medicines, mental capacity, safeguarding and care planning were in date and comprehensive.

A health professional told us they had “always found them open and keen to work collaboratively” and described care as “patient centred”. Another professional said the provider and staff were “very professional and kind” and knew when to seek specialist advice to manage risk safely.

The provider made sure staff and services worked well together to meet people’s needs. Staff worked collaboratively within the service and with external professionals.

There were clear systems for communication, including daily review of care notes, regular team meetings and supervision. Managers were accessible and responded promptly to concerns raised by staff or professionals. The service shared information appropriately with other care agencies and professionals to support continuity of care.

Care staff were supported through regular spot checks and competency assessments. New staff were introduced to people to ensure continuity and reduce distress. The provider also used shared working arrangements with other agencies where appropriate. Staff told us managers were “always available” and “extremely easy to talk to”. Relatives said carers were consistent and any new carers were introduced in advance, so people knew who to expect.

The provider supported people to live healthier lives by promoting independence, wellbeing and access to community activities.

Care plans focused on maintaining independence and supporting people to remain active and engaged. Staff encouraged mobility and daily living skills in line with physiotherapy and occupational therapy guidance. People were supported to access community activities, such as visits to gardens, cafés, libraries and music therapy groups, based on their interests and preferences.

The service supported people’s emotional wellbeing through consistent staffing, meaningful activities and positive interactions during care visits. Communication needs were assessed and met, including providing information in accessible formats where required.

Relatives told us care staff “bring a happy energy” and that people “never feel rushed”. One person told the registered manager, “You bring the spark of happiness,” which reflected the service’s approach to promoting wellbeing.

The provider monitored people’s outcomes and used this information to improve care and support.

The registered manager maintained oversight of care quality through regular audits, monitoring and review of incidents, accidents, complaints, compliments and safeguarding concerns. Lessons learned were identified and discussed at board meetings, with actions taken to reduce future risk. Electronic systems provided real- time alerts to support timely management oversight.

Feedback from people, relatives and professionals was positive and used to inform service development. Although formal surveys were not yet fully embedded, the provider had plans to introduce structured feedback systems for people and staff. Relatives said they were “very confident in their care” and described care standards as “really amazing from the top down”.

Staff told us they felt supported and valued, which helped them deliver consistent care.

The provider made sure people were supported to give consent to their care and treatment and understood their rights.

Consent was clearly recorded in care records, including consent to care, information sharing and photography. Mental capacity was assessed as part of the assessment process and reviewed if there were concerns about deterioration. Where people lacked capacity for specific decisions, the provider involved relatives and professionals and followed best‑interest processes.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and supported people to make day‑to‑day choices wherever possible. Relatives told us staff were respectful of people’s wishes and involved families appropriately, while maintaining people’s privacy.

Staff described how they promoted choice and explained how important it was that people felt they were “heard and at the centre of their care” during visits.