Care Matters (Wiltshire) 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 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.

People told us their needs were assessed before they were offered a service. This ensured the service was suitable for them. People said there were 6 monthly care reviews thereafter, but if their needs changed, more frequent reviews would be held. One relative told us “We talk about any changes – temporary or permanent.”

Management confirmed this and said they always met people initially, either in their own homes or other care settings. This ensured a detailed account of the person and the support they needed was gained. Further assessments were completed following any changes in the person’s health or if being discharged from hospital.

Management and staff told us any changes to care provision were made in a timely manner and advice was sought from professionals as required. This included asking an occupational therapist to assess a person for any equipment they might find useful.

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 told us staff did exactly what they wanted them to do. One person told us “They really show what care should look like”. People told us they were fully involved in developing their care plan, and staff were matched to them by personalities and interests. This worked well and enabled established relationships to be built.

Recognised national tools to assess key areas of a person’s support however, were not being used. This included the risk of pressure damage, choking and malnutrition. The registered manager immediately researched the tools once this was brought to their attention and sent us a sample of completed documentation.

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.

Management told us they had developed good relationships with a range of health and social care professionals. They said they were able to ask for advice without necessarily following a lengthy referral process. This ensured people received timely support, which met their needs. Staff told us they had supported a person whilst in hospital so they could reiterate what the doctor had said to them. The staff member said they acted as an advocate to ensure health care professionals understood the person’s needs and wishes.

Care records demonstrated any contact with health and social care professionals and discussions with relatives.

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.

Management told us they encouraged people to be healthy through good nutrition and hydration, and to keep as active as possible. They said they had reduced the level of support some people needed due greater independence and improved health.

Staff told us they always promoted healthier lives when supporting people. This included supporting people to mobilise safely and offering healthy food options. They said they prepared snacks and left drinks out for the person to have later as needed. This promoted intake with ease, particularly if the person lacked motivation or energy to do it themselves.

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.

People were very happy with the support they received. There were regular reviews which enabled people and their relatives to give feedback and make any changes to the support received. Management told us they phoned people regularly or visited them to ensure they were satisfied with the service. They said they ‘popped’ in to see anyone who had not been well. This ensured the person’s wellbeing and enabled additional support to be offered as required.

During the site visit, people received a friendly, caring approach when they telephoned the office. People were asked about their wellbeing and general conversation followed. This demonstrated people’s satisfaction with the service and familiarity with the management team

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

Records showed staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and were aware of the main principles. They told us they always assumed capacity unless a formal assessment determined otherwise. One member of staff told us the Act was a legal framework to make sure people’s rights were being respected.

Care records demonstrated mental capacity assessments had been completed by the person’s placing authority.

Staff told us they always asked people for consent before delivering any care intervention. They said they enabled people to direct their care, so did what the person wanted. A member of the management team told us about a person who did not want staff to use the hoist, as they believed they could manage independently. They said this decision was respected, as the person had capacity and the risks had been discussed with them. The staff member told us this was being kept under regular review.