Angel Home Care Service Private 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication with them.

The provider carried out initial assessments to determine whether they could safely and appropriately meet people’s needs before agreeing to deliver support. Following our visit, the provider submitted evidence confirming care reviews were completed with people to ensure their current care plans remained accurate and reflective of care being delivered. One relative told us, “Two people came from the service to do an assessment.” Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they continued to meet people’s assessed needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, they this was not always done in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff had best understanding of good practice and used their knowledge to ensure people’s needs were met effectively. We saw evidence people’s needs were assessed. However, the quality and the consistency of care planning required improvement. Although care plans were reviewed regularly, they were not always sufficiently detailed, person-centred or reflective of individuals’ current needs. Care plans lacked clarity and depth, which made it to ensure care was consistently tailored.

Support delivered to people was recorded electronically and we found this to be low on detail and mostly task based. This was fed back to the registered manager who was taking action to address this.

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 worked, collaborated, and communicated effectively with each other and with external services. One staff member told us, “I feel we all work together well.”

The provider-maintained links with stakeholders and professionals to support positive outcomes for people. This included their GP practice, speech and language therapy team or physiotherapist to name a few.

Staff reported feeling supported in their roles and felt confident to raise concerns, believing these would be listened to and acted upon. One staff member told us, “The manager is approachable and I can go them any time and raise concern if needed”. Another staff member told us, “We can raise concerns in the meetings”.

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 had a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences and felt strongly about ensuring these needs were met. Staff supported people to lead as independent lives as possible. One relative told us, “We have asked staff to support my loved one to be as independent as possible and staff does just that.”

Staff supported people with their diets and showed a good understanding of their individual preferences. For example, when people needed specific diets to meet their needs.

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.

People were supported by consistent staff who knew them well and was responsive to people’s needs. Staff spoke positively about the people they supported and demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring individuals received good quality care. One staff member told us, “We support different clients, some can walk and some are bed bound. When we arrive, we always ask if people need support with any personal care, and if they need food or medicines.”

Despite positive feedback from people, records did not always demonstrate how people’s views were incorporated into the decision making about their care. This included people’s care plans. When we told the registered manager about this, they considered this to be one of the improvement priorities going forward.

The provider did not aways tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff understood the importance of seeking consent from people and had overall good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). One staff member told us, “Before helping I would ask person what they would like me to do.”

There were policies and procedures in place to support compliance with the MCA. However, these were not always effective in practice. The provider did not always demonstrate a clear understanding of the MCA, for example in relation to assessing people’s capacity or conducting best interest decisions (BID’s) to support decision- making about people’s care.