GoodOaks Homecare

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 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. The registered manager and a member of the office team completed assessments with people, assessments were conducted face to face at a place to suit the person. The registered manager completed the first care visit which allowed them to find out where items were stored, for example, flannels; this also gave an opportunity to learn first-hand how people liked their support to be delivered in a person-centred way. This information fed into people’s care plans for staff to follow. People and their relatives contributed at the assessments to provide an overview of likes, dislikes, health needs and personal information. All people and relatives said the assessment process captured their views and wishes. A relative said, “They have stuck to their word.” The registered manager told us they periodically went out to support people and reviewed their needs, they said, “I still go on care visits, I love going out. I can see how someone has changed.”

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. The Waterlow tool was completed well for each person to assess the potential risks of sustaining pressure damage to their skin. Staff were guided on steps to minimise pressure damage, for example, the use of creams, pressure relieving equipment and position change recommendations. In the event of any skin concerns, staff could quickly access healthcare professional’s contact details as they were clear in people’s care records.

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. We saw examples of how staff and professionals worked together to achieve positive outcomes for people. Information about people was shared in a timely manner, the registered manager demonstrated an in depth understanding of the people they supported. A healthcare professional told us, “They always respond to emails, have time to discuss service users on the phone in depth, they know their clients’ needs and preferences.” Staff and managers used a communication app to inform each other if a person’s needs or requirements changed; this provided an effective way of ensuring up to date information was cascaded.

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. Staff supported people with meal planning, preparation and if needed, assistance with their meals. People’s care plans detailed allergies and any dietary requirements. When needed, the speech and language therapy (SaLT) team were consulted about choking risks. Professional advice was transferred into care plans with additional guidance of how to safely support the person when assisting meals. Staff followed instructions and guidance from physiotherapists, including exercise regimes to enhance people’s strength. A relative told us, “They are meant to do chair exercises, [staff member] does it and I do hear them counting etc.”

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. Staff followed healthcare professional’s advice and reported back when people were not experiencing expected outcomes. A relative told us, “[Loved one] does not know how to take pills and the carer called the GP and got them soluble tablets. That was really great. The carer also deals with the prescriptions.” Another person preferred to have their medicines mixed with food and drink, the registered manager liaised with the person’s GP to ensure their medicines were administered safely and in line with their wishes. The registered manager recommended ‘Jelly drops’ to a person, they are designed to increase people’s hydration. The registered manager told us how the jelly drops had improved the person’s outcomes. One person was at risk of constipation, the registered manager told us the person informed staff when they had opened their bowels, however, this was not documented. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they would implement a bowl chart for the person.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and their relatives told us staff always asked consent for all decisions. Staff documented daily that they had gained consent from people and told us that consent was important in all aspects of supporting people. A relative said, “They ask [person] what they want and they do respect [person’s] wishes.” Consent forms had been completed and signed by people or where needed, their legal representatives. Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and knew who lacked mental capacity for certain decisions. A staff member told us, “Someone with mental capacity can understand information relevant to a decision, weigh up the options, and communicate their choice. If a client is confused, unable to understand the consequences, or can’t communicate their decision, they may lack capacity for that specific choice.” One person's care records documented they lacked mental capacity to make decisions, MCAs were completed but did not specify in detail what decision they lacked capacity for. We fed this back to the registered manager who was already in the process of reviewing MCAs.