Future Home Care Limited Nottinghamshire

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 79 (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.

The provider had a team of people who focussed on assessing people prior to moving in to ensure they were well suited to the physical environment as well as considering compatibility if other people lived at the service. We saw assessments were detailed and captured people’s wishes and needs, capacity, communication, and others involved in their life.

People’s history was included in care plans which had been gathered from the person, relatives and professionals. This provided a holistic view of the person including any exposure to trauma to ensure it was considered in all their care planning.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were supported and encouraged to maintain relationships and develop relationships with others. The registered manager had formed an activities committee which supported with bringing people from different services together to foster the development of friendships. The registered manager told us, “We have stopped services from being satellite services and worked together, barriers have broken down a bit now and people have good relationships with each other.”

Staff understood the importance of supporting people with their physical and mental wellbeing. We saw staff facilitating a visit to another service for one person so that

they could visit a friend that lived there. One person told us about staff supporting them to develop a healthier diet, “I’ve lost 3 stone, I’ve cut down on chocolate” Staff kept clear records of meal choices and the person’s weight.

The approach the registered manager had adopted with the leadership team meant people received support that met their practical needs but also provided them with support to do things that mattered to them.

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.

Records evidenced conversations and meetings with a variety of external services and professionals, including physiotherapy, speech and language therapists and psychiatrists. We saw information was shared appropriately to ensure the relevant agencies were involved in people’s care and support to meet their holistic needs.

The provider always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We saw numerous examples of where people had been referred to external professionals for example, occupational therapy and speech and language therapist as well as documentation that evidenced ongoing engagement with local specialist teams who work with people with a learning disability and autistic people. Care plans detailed how to recognise changes in people’s presentation, emotional state or distress, which may show a deterioration in their health or wellbeing, and staff knew how best to support people with this.

We saw an example of how a person had been supported to use an automatic medicines dispenser to maximise their autonomy and allow them to manage their health and wellbeing more independently. The activity had been risk assessed, was monitored and information about using the medicines dispenser was shared with the person in an easy read format. We also saw that the local team had celebrated this achievement and staff said, “[Name] has embraced this new system brilliantly.”

Staff had received person specific training to support them to ensure people received the right level of encouragement and support. This was communicated to them in a way that was meaningful to them to maximise their independence, choice and control around health and wellbeing.

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.

All services had a “proud” folder which documented through text and photographs the achievements of people supported. The folder evidenced people’s engagement in setting and achieving goals and ambitions and working to their strengths to achieve them. For example, we reviewed a case study which documented a person's experience and support to enable them to travel independently to their day centre.

Outcomes and achievements were celebrated, and the registered manager had oversight of this and kept a central folder at their office to showcase these achievements. This meant setting goals with people and supporting them to reach these goals was an embedded way of working promoting positive outcomes for people.

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

We saw capacity was considered through documentation in support plans and staff had a clear understanding of capacity assessments being decision specific. We saw where people were deemed to lack capacity in a certain area appropriate people were involved, including the person and relatives, to make a decision in the persons best interests which was recorded in people’s support plans.

Observation of staff engagement with people showed they communicated with people using their preferred method of communication including using a photo book that support staff had created for one individual to support their understanding and guide staff on what the person was communicating to them.

These measures supported people’s choice and ensured, when people were unable to make a decision for themselves, that the right people were involved in decision making so that it was in line with the persons wishes and preferences and made in their best interests and within a legal framework in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.