Compassion Care Limited

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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 ensure people’s care and treatment were effective because there were no robust systems in place to regularly review and update care plans. This meant people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were not always routinely assessed or discussed to ensure records remained accurate and reflected their current needs. As a result, staff may not have had access to up-to-date information to support people effectively and deliver person-centred care.

The provider was not able to demonstrate how evidence-based approaches were used to assess, monitor and manage people's needs. Risk assessments were not always completed or used effectively to manage identified risks. For example, one person had a Waterlow assessment (Waterlow assessment is a widely used clinical risk assessment tool designed to predict a patient's risk of developing a pressure ulcer) which identified them as being at high risk of developing pressure ulcers; however, there was no clear information within their care plan or risk assessment outlining the preventive measures staff should take to reduce this risk. This meant staff may not have had the guidance needed to provide consistent care and protect people from avoidable harm.

The provider did not always work effectively across teams and services to support people’s needs. People's care records were not always accurate, complete or reflective of the care and support they received from external healthcare professionals and agencies. This meant important information was not always shared or incorporated into care plans, and there was limited evidence of joined-up care planning. This meant, staff may not have had access to all relevant information needed to provide safe, consistent and coordinated care, particularly when people moved between services or received support from multiple professionals.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing effectively to maximise their independence, choice and control. There were no effective systems in place to review daily records or care plans to identify changes in people's needs, emerging risks or deteriorating health. This meant opportunities to take timely action, seek appropriate professional advice and update care plans may have been missed.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to drive improvement or ensure positive and consistent outcomes. People did not always have individualised care plans in place to support their healthcare needs, and care plans were not always regularly reviewed to assess whether they continued to meet people’s needs. This meant changes in people’s health, wellbeing and support requirements may not have been identified or responded to in a timely way.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Care plans were not always clear, accurate, or sufficiently detailed to ensure people had consented to their planned care. Records did not consistently demonstrate whether people had been involved in developing their care plans or had provided consent to the care and support being delivered. Where consent had not been clearly recorded, there was insufficient evidence to show that people had agreed to the planned interventions or that decisions had been made in accordance with relevant legislation and guidance.