City Home 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.

The last rating for this key question was requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

At the last assessment, we identified breaches of a legal regulation relating to consent. At this assessment, improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer breaching this legal regulation.

This service scored 75 (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 assessed people’s needs and choices before they started using the service. They created care plans based on these. People using the service and their relatives told us they were involved in assessments and reviews. They explained care plans included information about how they wanted to be cared for.

Staff undertook a range of training. They said this was useful. The registered manager made sure staff received up to date training and information about good practice. People using the service told us staff had the skills to meet their needs. A person commented, “Care staff are lovely and well-trained.”

Staff worked with each other to make sure people’s needs were met. The provider had systems to ensure staff communicated changes and updated managers and each other about these. Managers organised for staff to have group meetings. These meetings were used to discuss the service and key procedures.

Staff explained they liaised with other professionals when needed. For example, when people became unwell or when they needed extra support.

Managers had assessed and planned for people’s healthcare needs. Care plans included information about how people’s health conditions impacted on their wellbeing or care. Staff checked people’s wellbeing during care visits and reported any concerns. The registered manager told us everyone using the service at the time of our assessment, managed their own healthcare appointments, or had representatives who did this for them.

Staff monitored people’s wellbeing and needs. They kept records of the care they provided and any problems for the person. They shared information with managers and people’s representatives.

Managers undertook regular reviews of people’s care. They discussed these with the person. People told us the agency made changes when they requested and when their needs changed.

At our last assessment, we found the provider had not always accurately assessed people’s mental capacity or obtained their consent. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made.

People were asked to consent to their care and treatment. People confirmed this and told us they were involved in decisions about their care. The provider had assessed people’s mental capacity. For people who lacked the mental capacity to make specific decisions, the provider had liaised with their representatives to make these decisions in their best interests.