Homecare For You Dudley

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 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 54 (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 were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's needs were assessed, and care plans generally contained person-centred information to help staff understand the people they supported. Records included details about people's preferences, likes and dislikes, routines, and aspects of their personal history and background. This helped staff provide care that reflected people's individual needs and choices.

However, care plans were not always reviewed and updated following incidents to ensure they accurately reflected people's current needs and circumstances. Therefore, did not always contain the most up-to-date information to guide staff in delivering care and support.

Whilst care plans were generally comprehensive and person-centred, the lack of timely reviews increased the risk that staff could be working from information that did not fully reflect people's current situation.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People's health needs were assessed and information relating to specific conditions was available within care records. For example, a person had a diabetes risk assessment in place, demonstrating the provider had considered people's individual health needs and potential risks. However, information was not always consistently transferred into care plans. This meant staff did not always have immediate access to all relevant information in one place to support the delivery of care that was fully informed by people's assessed needs.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people.

Systems were not always effective in ensuring information was consistently reviewed and acted upon. Although concerns and changes in people's needs were documented within care records, auditing processes did not always identify safeguarding concerns or trends within the content of staff notes. As a result, opportunities to take timely action and escalate concerns were missed.

However, there were systems in place to support effective teamwork and information sharing among staff. Care staff communicated information to the office through telephone calls about people's care and support needs. One relative said, “One day last week [person] was passing blood so the carer got the district nurse out and then got the doctor out.” Records showed office staff acted on information received and made appropriate referrals to external professionals, including GPs and social services.

People's care records did not consistently contain the information needed to support them safely and effectively to maintain their health and wellbeing. Care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate, complete or updated to reflect people's current needs.

We found examples where important information was missing from care documentation. One person's care plan did not include details of their bed rails, and there was no associated risk assessment in place to identify and manage the risks linked to their use. Records showed care plans were not always reviewed and updated following incidents, meaning staff may not have had access to the most current guidance to support people safely.

Medicine risk assessments lacked sufficient detail and did not clearly identify specific risks or provide guidance for staff on the actions required to mitigate those risks. In addition, a person assessed as being at high risk of falls did not have a falls risk assessment in place, which meant there was no documented plan to support staff in reducing the risk of further falls.

Moving and handling risk assessments contained inconsistent information. For example, 1 assessment stated the person was independent and required no equipment, while elsewhere it recorded, they used a trolley frame and shower chair. Inconsistencies increased the risk of staff not having clear and accurate information about how to meet people's needs safely.

However, staff told us they would share concerns about people’s health with the office who would contact external professionals, we saw evidence of involvement of external health professionals when necessary.

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

Although the provider had systems in place to monitor people’s care and treatment through 12 monthly care plan reviews, we did not see evidence that care plans recorded outcomes or goals to support individuals in maintaining independence.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and treatment, and consent was sought before care was provided. Records demonstrated people had consented to their care and support arrangements, and care documentation contained evidence of people's agreement to the support they received.

People told us staff respected their choices and sought their permission before providing care. One person told us, "Yes, they seek my consent. They say do you want a wash?"

At the time of our assessment, there were no people using the service who had been assessed as lacking the mental capacity to make decisions about their care and treatment. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of gaining consent and respecting people's right to make their own decisions.