Complesso Healthcare Solutions Also known as Community Response Service

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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. People’s needs were assessed prior to them receiving support and people and where appropriate, their relatives were involving in the development of care plans. People were asked when they needed support and care plans were developed around their assessed need.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and preferences and told us they used guidance contained in care plans to support people well.

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. Care plans included information about people’s goals and wishes and staff were proactive in supporting people to achieve what mattered to them.

Staff shared examples with us of how people had been supported to have more involvement in their own finances, supported through decision specific capacity assessments, which they hoped would result in more independence for the person. Other people were being supported to explore options for future employment to promote their independence in line with their wishes.

The directors and management team considered best practice guidance to design and shape the service as well as when reviewing people’s needs or offering people support for the first time. This included good practice around the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people.

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. People spoke positively about the staff who supported them. A relative shared with us how concerns they had previously raised about staffing had been resolved by the registered manager. They told us, “We had an issue in the past where a carer was always late to calls and not consistent. I spoke to the manager about it, they removed the carer from the calls, we then had a named carer who is [person’s] primary carer. They know [person] well and are consistent.''

There were systems in place to enable staff to share important information with each other, such as changes in people’s care needs, or health updates. This information was added to the care recording system so that all staff were aware. This enabled staff to act consistently.

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’s care records reflected the involvement of healthcare professionals. Staff made referrals to relevant external agencies, such as GPs or specialist community nursing teams to ensure people’s health needs were met. Staff received specialist training from healthcare professionals to support them to meet people’s individual health needs, such as epilepsy or feeding tubes.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s health needs and could explain how they would identify any changes which would need to be referred. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s health needs, and these were reviewed when changes occurred to ensure guidance for staff was up to date.

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.

Outcomes relating to people’s quality of life were recorded in reviews for people living in the community. Regular reviews were undertaken considering all aspects of people’s care and this included feedback from people about whether they had achieved what they wanted to, and any new goals they wanted staff to support them with. This included support with health and fitness, plans for education as well as feedback that could improve a person’s experience of care. For example, 1 person had asked the management team to ensure any new staff had completed shadowing shifts before supporting them on their own. In some cases, an increase in support hours had been requested to improve a person’s quality of life.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. However, staff did not always act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Records relating to people’s capacity to consent were not always clear. Some documents showed people’s relatives had consented to specific aspects of their care, or made decisions on behalf of people, when they did not have the legal authorisation to do so. We shared these concerns with the registered manager who told us they would take action to review these concerns and ensure the correct decision making processes were followed and recorded. We will review this as part of our next inspection. In other areas people’s capacity to consent to specific decisions, such as restrictive practices, had been assessed and recorded in line with the Mental Capacity Act.

People told us, and we observed, staff asked for their consent before providing care and support. One person told us, “I have a good relationship with staff, they ask me for consent.” Where people had capacity to make specific decisions staff understood this and shared examples with us of how they checked people were happy with their actions before providing care.