Alchita Care Limited of Bradford

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent at the service.

This service scored 42 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Information in care plans was inconsistent or incomplete. For example, we found a communication care plan that did not record how the person verbalises their needs. Care plans were not up to date with changes in people’s presentation; therefore, we could not be assured staff could provide effective care. For example, we found care plans had not been updated after people had fallen.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, the provider failed to demonstrate compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and did not use recognised tools to help identify and reduce risks such as malnutrition or skin integrity. Daily records did not evidence what support people were given, for example with eating and drinking therefore we could not be assured care was in line with evidenced based practice.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Although care records contained information from external professionals, there was limited evidence of collaborative working between the service and these professionals. Despite this, overall feedback from external professionals was positive. Comments included: “The carers are all lovely and provide good care,” and “There hasn’t been any recent concerns.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Whilst there was some information around people accessing specialised support for specific health needs, there was also a lack of information in people’s care plans on how they were supported with other healthcare needs including how they accessed the dentist, optician and GP. Records were inconsistent and out of date to review this information, therefore we could not be assured staff had access to up-to-date information regarding how to support people. Daily logs did not include information on what support was given during visits, we could not be assured care supported people to live a healthier life.

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. Care documentation was poor quality and not up to date. There was limited evidence of people and their relative’s involvement in developing care plans. Therefore, the provider did not have effective oversight of people’s needs, and staff did not have reliable information or guidance to refer to. Although the provider completed recent feedback surveys for people using the service, there was no evidence this information was used to improve the care delivered.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment. The records in place did not demonstrate the provider was working in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Documents were out of date and completed incorrectly; for example, in one person’s records it stated they could not retain information, however, elsewhere it was recorded, they could retain information. We found there was a lack of information recorded such as the specific decision details. The provider did not always record the person’s expressed wishes. Staff did not demonstrate they understood capacity, for example a staff member told us, “[Person] does not have capacity, [Person] has dementia.” Although staff were up to date with Mental Capacity training, daily records lacked evidence consent was gained prior to care.