Alcedo Care Leeds

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 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 treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s routines, preferences, risks and health conditions. Key assessments around malnutrition and skin integrity were completed where required. People and relatives told us they were involved in assessments and care planning. `1 relative said, “I was involved in the initial assessment. Asked questions about what we wanted.” Another told us, “Staff made sure [they] understood everything.” The service also identified and recorded people’s communication needs and could provide information in accessible formats to support involvement in their care.

The provider delivered care and treatment in line with current guidance and recognised good practice. Staff used detailed care plans and risk assessments to support people safely, including assessments relating to nutrition, choking, epilepsy, falls and skin integrity. Staff completed mandatory and specialist training relevant to people’s needs, including medicines management, safeguarding, mental capacity assessments (MCA) and epilepsy support. Competency assessments were used to ensure staff could provide care safely. 1 relative told us, “We give them a list of safe foods” which staff followed demonstrating how care was adapted to meet individual needs.

The provider worked effectively with people, relatives and professionals to deliver coordinated care. Records showed regular liaisons were held with GPs, district nurses, social workers, safeguarding teams and multidisciplinary professionals when concerns arose or needs changed. Staff shared information through care records, meetings and governance processes. 1 relative said, “They share information between themselves. [They] have a list of favourite songs and activities. Staff pass these to each other.” The service worked closely with partner organisations to ensure people received the right support at the right time.

People were supported to maintain their health, wellbeing and independence. Care plans provided guidance for staff about people’s health needs, nutrition, hydration and mobility. Staff escalated concerns appropriately. Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible and supported access to healthcare services when needed. 1 relative said, “Staff encourage [person]. They give [person] the option to try.” The provider also shared information with people and families about maintaining healthy and safe lifestyles.

The provider monitored people’s outcomes through audits, reviews, feedback and governance systems. Care plans, care notes, medicines and quality reviews were regularly audited, with action taken when improvements were identified. People and relatives were asked for feedback about the service, and this was used to make improvements. 1 relative told us, “Staff help [them] to develop new skills.” Another said, “Staff have hugely improved [their] life.” The service monitored accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns to identify trends, share learning and improve practice.

The provider supported people to make decisions about their care and treatment and respected their choices. Care records included information about consent and decision making, and staff understood the importance of involving people in decisions about their support. People and relatives consistently told us staff sought consent before providing care. We identified one area for improvement where a Gillick competency assessment would have been more appropriate than a mental capacity assessment for a child. However, this had not affected the care provided and overall people were supported to make decisions about their care. The provider agreed to learn from this to ensure staff had access to the right assessments.