Brand Care

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 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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to care being delivered. Relatives told us their care was reviewed regularly and the registered manager communicated with them frequently throughout their care journey. One relative said, “The service worked with me at the time of the assessment. They continue to support me as [name] needs change. They [managers] are personable, visiting the house regularly and the staff always feedback any changes to them.”

Staff said care plans were thorough and included people’s needs and risks for example, with their mobility. They said plans of care were also reflective of the people they supported. Staff were able to continually access care records via their hand-held devices and any change in people’s needs could be recorded in the moment.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Managers and staff were aware, and had knowledge of, how people wished for their care and treatment to be delivered. Our review of care record entries and discussions with them confirmed this.

People and relatives told us they were fully involved in how their care was arranged and delivered. For example, care plans included and guided staff how to meet people’s cultural, nutrition and hydration needs and preferences and mobility needs. A relative said, “Carers are really good when moving and handling my [family member].” A further relative said, “Carers support my [family member] to prepare and cook their choice of meal.”

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 registered manager and staff knew people well, including their life history and experiences and what and who was important to them such as their religious and cultural needs and the impact other health conditions had affected them. Knowledge of people’s lives had enabled relationships between staff and people to be fostered. Relatives consistently praised this approach and their ongoing efforts to keep their knowledge of people current.

Staff were able to share information within their hand-held devices with each other. One staff member told us, “Information we record in the device is accessible to all staff so they can see what each of us have done on each call and any concerns we have identified.”

The registered manager told us how they shared relevant information and worked in partnership with an external social care professional to support a relative with a review of their [family members] care needs.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service collaborated well with relatives, which supported their informal care arrangements. For example, one person had an enduring health condition. Staff were fully aware of and understood the impact of this condition upon them. They were aware of relapse indicators which could suggest the person’s health was deteriorating. One relative said, “The manager and staff always report any deterioration they observe in [Name’s] health to me to support them to receive prompt treatment.” This meant the service had an ethos of providing support to people to live healthy lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Assessments and people’s care records contained information relating to people’s health and social care professionals including their GP, Consultant and Social Worker.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care to ensure it was effective and improved people’s outcomes wherever possible.

Relatives reported the registered manager and staff worked hard, alongside themselves, to achieve this.

Relatives told us their care arrangements were monitored and reviewed, and they were involved and consulted. Our review of 2 people’s care records and feedback received confirmed this. They told us the service was flexible when changes were requested by as part of the formal review process and outside of it. The effectiveness of this process was tested in the most recent survey. Every respondent said they, and their families where appropriate, had full involvement in their care planning.

Staff said the care plans held within hand-held devices continually reflected people’s needs and were updated promptly following any change. One said, “Care plans in the ‘app’ have all the information I need and are really good.”

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

Assessments and care records recorded consent. One relative said, “Staff always ask for consent before doing anything.”

Documentation relating to consent followed good practice. For people who may not have the capacity to consent to their care plan, mental capacity assessments were undertaken and where appropriate with their representatives. This meant the provider was applying the principles of the Mental Capacity Act [MCA]and best interest decisions were considered were appropriate. Best interest decisions are used for when an individual lacks the mental capacity to make a specific choice for themselves.

Staff we spoke with were able to clearly describe how they gained consent from people and understood the importance of this. They told us permission to deliver care was sought and how they responded if someone chose to refuse. One staff member said, “We always need permission, so I always ask. If a person refuses, we don’t just do it anyway.”