Nissi Home Care

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

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.

This service scored 71 (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 ensured that people received effective care and treatment by regularly assessing and reviewing their health, wellbeing, care, and communication needs. Detailed Information about people’s needs was gathered and assessed prior to people being looked after by the provider.

We saw evidence of further support being sought by healthcare providers when people’s needs changed, or new risks were identified.

Policies and procedures reflected evidence-based practices, and care plans were updated promptly when individuals’ needs changed.

People shared that their care needs and personal preferences were discussed with them at the start of their support from the provider. However, one person we spoke with told us they had not seen their care plan and they were not clear whether they were entitled to different types of support.

We recommend the provider ensures all people are involved in care planning and updated information is shared.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The care plans we reviewed during our inspection included detailed information about people’s specific health needs and conditions. Daily records included details on people’s food and fluid intake especially of those at risk of malnutrition and dehydration.

Management and staff told us not all people received support regarding their meals and activities but there was a culture in the service to encourage healthy habits. A relative told us “They [staff] talk about healthy eating and they make sure my relative had their meal. The carer does promote my relative’s health, he is really good at this.”

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

During our assessment, we found a comprehensive policy was in place for Mental Capacity. For people about to join the service who are deemed to not have capacity, the provider told us they conduct an updated assessment and discuss further with involved stakeholders if they have concerns about a person. Most staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act.

In the care records we reviewed some information was in place about people lacking or having capacity. However, mental capacity assessments were not clearly documented in care plans if at all. The care plans did not contain any information about the involvement of advocacy services. We discussed this with the manager, and they explained they have some difficulties with relatives to establish all the information and follow the correct procedures. The manager provided evidence of scheduled meetings with relatives to collaborate on the matter for people lacking capacity.

Additionally, it was not always clearly documented who manages medication in the care plans. This can increase risk especially for people who need emergency medication. We brought this to the provider’s attention and they made the necessary clarifications in the care plans.

We recommend the provider revisits the recording of mental capacity procedures in the care plans and ensures they are accurate, comprehensive and person-centred.