Future Care Enable Ltd

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 63 (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 ensure information from assessments was accurately recorded in people’s care plans and risk assessments.

People told us they met with senior staff and received an assessment of their needs before the provider agreed to provide their care. We saw records of pre assessments that had been completed with people and their relatives. However, the information from the pre assessment was not always accurately transferred to care plans and risk assessments to ensure people received the care they required. People’s care plans and risk assessments contained inconsistent and inaccurate information.

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

Care records were not always consistent and did not accurately identify people’s individual health conditions and needs. Care plans and risk assessments contained confusing information and the areas of people’s care where staff were required to provide support were not clear. For example, one person’s care plan referred to staff providing support in relation to rehabilitation and post -operative care. Another person used equipment to support them to sleep safely, this person’s care plan referred to staff ensuring the device was correctly used and maintained. The provider confirmed staff were not required to provide support in these areas, there was a risk staff would provide people with unsafe support.

Following the inspection the registered manager reviewed people’s care plans and risk assessments to ensure they contained correct information about the areas in which they required support.

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.

The provider had systems to enable staff to communicate with each other and during the assessment we saw these were effectively used in practice. The registered manager regularly visited people to gather feedback, observe staff practice, and identify any changes in people’s needs. They were available to people who used the service and staff and held regular meetings with stakeholders to ensure everyone was informed about care arrangements.

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.

Systems were in place to support people to access appropriate healthcare when needed. The registered manager had supported people to access their GP, community nurses and other health and social care professionals when required.

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

Staff did not always record what follow up action had been taken when concerns were identified. For example, on 2 occasions people’s daily notes described people as scratching their skin and having very red skin. Staff supported one person to apply a prescribed cream at the time of the concerns; however, no there was no record of any action being taken to support the other person, and the concerns were not followed up at subsequent care visits for either person. There was a risk the condition of people’s skin would deteriorate without appropriate action being taken.

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

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People had consented to their care and told us they were involved in making decisions. People had been involved in planning their care and had signed copies of their care plans. The provider had systems in place to support effective decision making if people lacked the mental capacity to make their own decisions.