Pinnacle Caring Services Limited

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 62 (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. Managers told us they undertook assessments of people’s needs at the start of the service. They liaised with commissioners to ensure they were able to meet people’s requirements. In one case staff used a recognised assessment tool to help assess a person’s needs and develop their care plan. The provider told us they did not support anyone who had a learning disability or was autistic at present. They were aware of relevant guidance in relation to this and staff had undertaken required training.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care plans were in place and people had access to a copy in their homes. They contained information about people’s preferences and goals. Staff maintained records about the care they had provided to people such as with positional turns or food intake. Care plans generally guided staff about the care people needed, however information in relation to people’s health conditions was minimal. One person’s care plan had not been updated to reflect several significant changes put in place to support them, including moving and handling needs and when support was required from a second care worker. Whilst staff were familiar with people’s needs and the support they needed, it was important records were reflective of people’s current needs to ensure any other potential staff had up to date information.

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. Staff contacted partners in health and social care where their input was required. For example, we saw staff had liaised with district nurses and occupational therapists to support one person, who told us, “They all work together for my best interests.”

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 had access to their GP or district nurses when needed. We saw staff had supported a person to attend various health appointments.

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. However, records relating to this needed to be more robust. People and staff told us they saw the registered manager on a regular basis and could discuss their care. The regular staff were able to tell us how they monitored people’s care needs. However, where staff had undertaken a review of a person, the records were not robust as they did not record whether any discussions had taken place with the person or their representatives to understand their views. They only recorded “no changes,” which did not demonstrate what had been discussed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. We saw consent was considered as part of people’s care plan arrangements. However, records needed to be more robust to ensure people’s rights were always fully considered and respected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). For example, one person had signed their consent to be supported by the care plan in place. However, records relating to a particular arrangement within this needed to be clearer to demonstrate whether this decision had been fully discussed and agreed with the person. Discussions with some staff indicated they may benefit from further training in relation to the application of the MCA.