Astoria Homecare 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to consent to care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 71 (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 and relatives told us they had been involved in the initial development of the care plan, but some people stated they could not recall being involved in any reviews of their care needs. The registered manager said they met with the person and carried out an assessment of support needs before their care started. The registered manager confirmed that care plans should be reviewed annually or when there was a change in a person’s support needs. Staff confirmed people had detailed care plans and they had a good understanding of the support needs of people they visited.

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 and relatives felt that staff had received the appropriate training to meet people’s care needs. A relative said, “The regular carers are good, they understand what [family member] needs and if there is anything of concern, they flag it up.” The registered manager said they discussed best practice during supervision, in training and emails were sent out with specific guidance related to supporting people with hydration and dealing with the heat. People’s care plans identified if they required support from staff with preparing or eating meals. A relative told us they prepared food in advance, and the staff member provided additional support, “The carers will sort it out, [family member] cooks with help and sometimes the carers will make a quick chapatti.”

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 completed records of the care they had provided during each visit so this information could be shared with other staff members who also visited the person. There were team meetings where any issues and best practice were discussed. The registered manager confirmed they worked with the local authority and healthcare professionals to ensure people received the support they needed.

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’s care plans identified their GP, which pharmacy fulfilled their prescriptions and any other healthcare professionals involved in the person’s care. People and relatives told us they usually managed their healthcare appointments themselves. People said staff members understood their medical conditions and provided appropriate support. Care plans identified if people required support with their oral care and how that support should be provided. A social care professional told us, “Staff are responsive, approachable, and proactive in communicating with professionals involved in [people’s] care.”

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. Where the assessment of people’s care needs identified specific support needs, this was recorded in the care plan and reviewed to ensure these needs were being met. The registered manager explained they reviewed the records of the care provided which were completed by staff following each visit. In addition, they received feedback from staff about the people they supported to monitor the care provided reflected their care needs. Staff confirmed they regular reviewed people’s care plans and felt confident when providing care.

At our last assessment we found the provider did not consistently implement the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. At this assessment, we identified that some improvements had been made but further actions were required.

The provider had processes to assess people’s ability to consent to aspects of their care, but the related records had not always been updated. We saw some mental capacity assessments for people had been completed which indicated they had capacity. People’s consent to care forms, which had previously been signed by a relative, had not been updated to reflect that the person could consent to their own care. This was discussed with the registered manager, and they confirmed the records would be reviewed immediately after the assessment to reflect the person’s capacity to consent to their care. The registered manager confirmed this had been completed. We saw the mental capacity assessments for other people reflected their ability to make decisions about their care. Staff completed training in relation to mental capacity, and they demonstrated they understood the importance of support people to make decisions.