Focus Care Link Ltd - Waltham Forest Branch

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 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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. Care plans were not regularly reviewed and updated to make sure the information was current, and care, support and treatment met people’s needs. We observed a care plan had not been updated in a timely manner to reflect a new health diagnosis. Also, information about changes to people’s medicines had not been recorded in their care plans.
Additionally, 1 person did not have adequate behaviour support plans in place to help manage and improve their behaviour. As a result, staff lacked the necessary information to promote positive behaviour and respond appropriately when challenges arose. Care plans included information on people’s physical health, mental health, sensory, social and communication needs. The assessment informed the care plan. Staff told us they had read and understood people’s care plans to ensure they met their needs.
 

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. Leaders had not ensured the service delivered care and support in line with best practice guidance. The service had not always ensured that up-to-date approaches were used to support people’s conditions, health, or behavioural needs.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. When the provider identified a person using the service may have a need that is outside of what they were delivering, they adapted their support and escalated to the relevant agencies. For example, when some people had required specialist equipment, the provider had arranged for appropriate assessments and worked with external professionals to ensure the necessary equipment was provided. The registered manager commented, ‘’We work with healthcare professionals to ensure effective care to people including registered nurses, physiotherapists, dieticians, chiropodists and GPs.’’ Staff told us they felt well informed. They also worked closely with local training providers and the local authority. A staff member told us, ‘’The manager communicates clearly and regularly, updating staff throughout the day with changes and providing reassurance.’’

The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were encouraged and supported to make healthier choices. For example, people were supported to be as physically active as possible to retain their mobility and stay active. Staff told us they had collected people’s medicines to ensure they were available when needed and to support people who were unable to collect their medicines.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. For example, people were supported to maintain or improve their level of mobility and independence. The care plan included protective measures outlining the actions staff should take to support the achievement of the identified outcomes.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and their representatives completed consent forms where necessary. When people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about their care, the provider had clearly identified their legal representative(s). All staff had undertaken Mental Capacity Act training to ensure they had understood the importance of obtaining consent before they delivered care and treatment.