IJB Healthcare 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

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 67 (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.

The registered manager told us they carried out an assessment of people’s needs prior to the provision of care and records confirmed this. The assessment involved people and their relatives where appropriate, so it captured what was important to them. A person told us, “The care manager and one of the senior care workers came to visit my [Relative] at their house. They asked questions to familiarise themselves with their needs.”

The registered manager told us a review of care plans was carried out regularly to reflect on the changes and support required.

Relatives confirmed they were involved in putting together and reviewing the care plan and risk assessments.

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 and their relatives were included in the care planning process so their preferences and goals could be met. The provider carried out an assessment of people’s needs before they began to use the service. This meant they were able to plan any resources, such as staff rotas and activities.

Care plans we reviewed clearly provided a good overview about people’s dietary, nutrition and hydration needs and the level of support required.

Policies were in line with national good practice and care was given in a person-centred way, in line with the persons wishes, and they were involved in the care planning process.

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.

Effective staff communications systems were in place. The registered manager maintained effective communication with people and their relatives. Information was shared with the staff whenever there were changes to people’s care and support.

Monthly staff meetings were organised, and discussion focused on health and safety, safeguarding, infection prevention control, nutrition and hydration, trainings and people’s overall health and well-being.

The staff we spoke with, demonstrated a good awareness of people’s health and medical needs and, how they would respond to these, if people were to become unwell. The staff 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.

People were supported by staff to stay healthy and well in line with their assessed needs. People’s wishes were documented in their care plans. The care plans we reviewed, clearly highlighted the support the people using the service required and how staff can meet those needs.

Staff were aware of people’s health diagnosis, dietary requirements, lifestyle, and mobility 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.

Records we reviewed indicated staff did not always take appropriate action when they identified concerns. For example, a person with diabetes had a daily foot inspection chart in place which was completed on paper by staff members. Staff found redness on person’s feet which lasted for nearly a week. This occurred twice in the same month, but staff did not take any action. This meant people were at risk of infection. However, we found no evidence that people were harmed. The community diabetic foot nurses were involved, and the person had regularly been visited by them.

To monitor and improve people’s care and support, the service provider started using electronic monitoring, such as reviewing daily care records on digital software system by a care coordinator.

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

We found the service was not routinely working within the principles of Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). For example, the provider completed mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions for people where a person's ability to make a specific decision changes over time, meaning they may lack capacity at one moment but have it at another time. We found these assessments lacked detailed information about specific decisions about their care. Following our inspection, the provider, completed a detailed mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions for this person.

The best interest meetings under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are a formal, multidisciplinary meeting to make decisions for someone lacking capacity. Records showed, in this case, the provider did not organise any such meetings.

People and relatives, we spoke with told us they were involved in planning their care and support and were able to share their preferences for how they wished to receive care. The provider recorded consent within care plans and support documentation.

Staff we spoke with said they always sought consent before providing care. A person said, “Staff always ask for my consent at all the times.” A relative commented, “Care workers communicate with my [relative] frequently and seek their consent regarding the care they receive.”

Staff also shared a greater understanding regarding seeking consent from people. Comments from staff included, “We always seek people’s consent on a daily basis, in fact all the time.”, And “We cannot force people to do anything. We ask for their consent.”