Elmes Homecare

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 remains 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.

People and their relatives told us their individual needs were assessed before they joined the service to ensure their needs could be met. People and their relatives told us they had been involved in discussions about their needs and care. Relatives we spoke with told us, “An assessment was carried out before a care package was commenced” and “It was a very thorough assessment, I was fully involved”.

Staff and relatives told us they had access to people’s care plans electronically by using the provider’s homecare app on their mobile phone.

People’s assessments included people’s health conditions, background, personal care requirements, likes, dislikes and allergies.

The provider involved people in planning and delivering their care and treatment, including what was important and mattered to them.

People were supported to have a choice on what they wanted to eat and drink.

Regular staff meetings were not held. This meant staff did not have the opportunity to discuss the running of the service, people's individual support needs and sharing of best practice and lessons learned. The registered manager told us that due to staff working different shifts it was not possible to get them together. Staff comments included, “No, we don’t have these [staff meetings], everyone works different hours but think this would be beneficial”, and “No, we do not have staff meetings, I just speak to managers if I go into the office or if they ask to speak to me” and “No staff meetings, we have a carers WhatsApp group inviting individual staff into the office for tea and chat.” The registered manager told us they would look at options such as holding staff meetings in the future by Zoom.

Staff received formal supervision and appraisals to monitor and review staff performance.

Staff told us that they would call other services such as a GP or paramedics if they felt people needed support from these services.

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 to access healthcare professionals when needed. These included GPs, district nurses and dieticians.

The provider did not 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 health care expectations. This was because care plans for people living with certain health conditions, for example, Parkinson’s disease or strokes did not always clearly outline guidance and specific support people required in mobilising safely, when these conditions impacted their mobility.

People’s care needs were not consistently monitored, as potential risks to people were not always identified. Staff did not always have the necessary information to manage these risks, this meant the provider could not be assured that people were supported safely in line with their care requirements.

Care plans were not always updated after incidents, so could not be relied on to shape people experiences and outcomes.

People were informed about their rights in relation to consent and this was respected when delivering care and treatment

Records showed that ‘consent to care’ forms had been signed either by people or their relatives. People were supported to make choices about their care and support.

Staff told us they respected people’s rights to make their own decisions about what they wanted to eat, to wear or whether they wanted personal care and sought their consent before supporting them. The provider and staff we spoke with, were able to demonstrate a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood what actions to take if someone had refused care.

The service was working within the principles of the MCA. There were policies and procedures in place and staff had received MCA training. If a person lacked capacity to make specific decisions, the provider ensured that best interests decision making process was followed, where relatives, healthcare professionals were involved.