Athlone 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

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 because they did not always update care plans after discussing people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Assessments of people’s needs were not always used to develop up to date and holistic care plans. For example, one person’s care plan included information on what caused them to become upset. However, there was no guidance for staff on how to support the person when some of these triggers to distress arose. Another person had a stoma. There was guidance for staff on how to support the person with some aspects of their stoma care but there is no information on how other aspects of their stoma were managed. A stoma is a small opening in the abdominal wall that allows urine and/or faeces to pass.

However, there were systems in place to assess people’s needs. These systems varied depending on if the service was given notice or asked to take on people’s care packages urgently. People’s needs were assessed.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

There were areas where staff understanding did need to be improved. For example, we identified a number of concerns relating to medicines and staff were not following National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance for managing medicines in the community. This meant there was an increased risk to people from poor management of medicines.

However, staff used best practice tools to assess people’s needs. For example, tools to assess people’s skin integrity risk level.

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.

Health and social care professionals told us the provider was open and transparent and shared information well with them. Feedback about communication was positive. Referrals were made to health and social care professionals when appropriate. For example, staff knew how to refer people to occupational therapist if people needed this 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 contacted health care professionals as needed when people were unwell. This included contacting the emergency services where people needed urgent medical assistance. One relative told us, “They quickly called an ambulance when [my relative] fell and knocked [their] head.”

People and their relatives told us they provided people with support to eat and drink where this was needed. One person told us, “They make sure I have a couple of drinks by my bed.” A relative told us, “[My relative] always got drinks.”

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.

The providers electronic care system alerted office staff when calls were not attended, or care tasks were not delivered. There were areas where monitoring needed to be improved such as oversight of medicines. For example, the electronic care system had alerted staff one person had missed a medicine, but staff had not taken appropriate action. The person missed 4 doses over 4 different days before staff took sufficient action to prevent re-occurrence.

However, there were areas where monitoring outcomes where was effective such as ensuring staff attended care calls so care could be provided when scheduled.

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

Staff understood people had the right to make decisions for themselves. This included where people needed support to express these decisions. One staff told us, “I have to respect their decisions. I make sure I ask for consent.”

People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed where appropriate to do so. Staff were aware if the people they supported had capacity or needed some decisions made for them in their best interests in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where decisions were made on people’s behalf, in their best interests, relevant stakeholders were involved and decisions were recorded.