Supreme Care 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 63 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective. We found that staff did not always maintain clear and comprehensive care records to support reviews. Care plans were not regularly updated to ensure the information remained current and that care and support continued to meet people’s needs and intended outcomes. For example, some care plans did not contain sufficient information about people’s health conditions and medicines to ensure their needs were fully assessed.
However, where appropriate families and professionals were meaningfully involved in the assessment of people’s needs. The assessment informed the care plan.
 

The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. For example, where individuals were at risk of developing pressure sores, the provider had not assessed this risk using a recognised tool such as the Waterlow score. A waterlow score is a risk assessment tool used to identify people who may be at risk of developing pressure ulcers. It looks at factors such as mobility, nutrition, skin condition, age, and continence to help staff put preventative care in place. This meant that care and support were not always delivered in line with evidence-based guidance to support the prevention of pressure ulcers.
However, people’s nutrition and hydration needs were met in line with current guidance. Staff supported people to manage their dietary needs by ensuring they received sufficient food and drink to reduce the risk of malnutrition or dehydration.
 

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. People informed us that staff had a clear understanding of their needs and provided appropriate support. They reported that the care they received was coordinated effectively. They told us, “Well trained and skilled carers, very good, understand my needs,” and “Well trained and skilled, no problems, they know what to do and alert us if they feel anything else would help [family member].”Staff told us they had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care and support.

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 eating and drinking, personal and oral hygiene. A person using the service told us, ‘‘I receive 2 visits a day. In the morning, I am assisted with washing, dressing and having my hair oiled and washed. I receive the same support again in the evening. The carer also prepares my breakfast.’’ In addition, staff told us they had collected people’s medicines to ensure they were available when needed and to support people who were unable to collect their medicines.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, staff had not put monitoring measures in place to identify known or emerging needs related to pressure sores, address concerns, or take action to improve outcomes for these individuals. We found that repositioning charts for people at risk of pressure sores did not always contain sufficient information to demonstrate when and how often people had been repositioned to prevent pressure-related injuries.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People's capacity and ability to consent was taken into account, and they, or a person lawfully acting on their behalf, were involved in planning and managing their care and treatment. People using the service confirmed that their views and wishes were taken into account during the planning of their care, and relatives confirmed they were appropriately involved in decision-making where required. A member of staff told us, ‘‘I ensure that I take their consent before providing any support.’’ Staff had completed training in mental capacity to ensure they fully understood how to obtain consent appropriately and how to support individuals who may lack capacity.