Archived: Outreach Care Support 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 was 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 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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their care and support needs. An initial assessment was carried out to make sure the provider could meet the person’s support needs. Regular assessments were carried to monitor people’s independence skills in order to measure progress and identify future development.

Staff routinely assessed needs each time they supported a person. One staff member told us, “We assess each day how a person is, if they are having a good day, we often find that people need less support. However, if people are having a bad day, we usually know through assessing the situation and knowing the person that they are likelier to need more support.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them. Information about a person’s support detailed what was important and the things that mattered to them. The registered manager told us how they sought training for themselves and their staff to ensure they kept up to date with best practice. The provider had a range of training offered demonstrated staff were equipped with care contemporary care practices.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They worked alongside services that delivered support to people as part of their daily routine. Systems were in place to share information which included meeting as staff teams to discuss people’s care.

The provider told us about their relationships with other local providers and statutory agencies they work alongside. They told us about their partnership working with the local authority in improving the quality of support they deliver and how people who use the service benefit from this.

The provider supported people to manage their wellbeing and maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people in a way that helped them develop skills to reduce the need for care and support. Staff were able to identify what people could do for themselves as well as identifying where skills could be developed to maximise independence.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive with the staff team working with a consistent approach that enabled people develop skills.

Records kept by the provider detailed people’s care on a daily basis, detailing what support people required. This information fed into regular progress reports outlining what people had learnt and areas where further development was possible.

The provider was not able to evidence that people agreed to the decisions about their care. Whilst plans stated that people were consulted and that they agreed the care, the provider was not able to demonstrate the person’s involvement in recording the decision. As part of our feedback, we asked the provider to consider how people would indicate their views and where people lacked capacity to be clear when recording the views of others involved.

Staff told us how they sought people’s consent before commencing support. A staff member said, “We involve people, showing them respect, asking their permission.”