Evolving Care Ltd Leicester

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 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their relatives told us they had been involved in assessing their needs and developing their care plans. They also told us their needs were regularly reviewed. Staff explained where people's needs changed, care plans were updated and information was shared to ensure staff were aware of any changes. The registered manager told us reviews were completed face to face to help ensure care continued to meet people's needs and preferences.

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.

The provider used recognised assessment tools, where appropriate, to support the assessment and monitoring of people's needs, including nutritional and skin integrity assessments. We reviewed examples where recognised tools had been completed to help identify risks and inform care delivery.

One person had been assessed by speech and language professionals; however, the provider did not initially have a copy of the assessment available. Following the inspection, the provider obtained a copy to strengthen oversight and ensure care remained aligned with professional recommendations. Relatives confirmed staff followed guidance provided by healthcare professionals and raised no concerns about how care and treatment were delivered.

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.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People had monitoring tools in place where these had been identified as part of their assessed needs. Feedback from relatives demonstrated people's health outcomes were being monitored effectively. One relative described an improvement in their family member's wound and told us, "When I speak to the district nurse, they have said it looks better."

Staff were able to describe how they monitored people's health needs and responded to concerns. For example, staff explained the signs they looked for when supporting a person with catheter care, including changes in urine colour, leakage and signs of skin irritation.

The registered manager shared examples of how care had been adapted in response to people's changing needs and goals. For one person who had become socially isolated, the provider worked with other professionals to secure additional support, enabling them to spend more time outside of their home and participate in activities that were important to them.

However, for one person who was supported to attend healthcare appointments, processes for sharing relevant health information could be strengthened. The registered manager acknowledged this and provided assurance that this would be addressed.

The provider did not always clearly demonstrate how people’s rights around consent were assessed and recorded where they lacked capacity.

Where people were assessed as lacking capacity to make specific decisions, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been completed. However, records did not always clearly demonstrate how capacity had been assessed or the rationale for decisions reached. In some cases, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been combined within the same document, reducing clarity and making it more difficult to evidence decision specific assessments.

Feedback from staff and relatives suggested some people may have required further consideration of their capacity to make particular decisions. We shared this with the registered manager, who acknowledged the concerns identified and assured us these would be reviewed alongside existing documentation.

Despite these recording concerns, people and their relatives told us staff sought consent before providing care and support and offered people choices about how their care was delivered.