North London Community Care Agency Ltd

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 67 (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. Care plan did not always reflect the information gathered during initial assessment and changes in people's care and support needs. However, after this was discussed with the service manager, we were informed that care plans would be promptly updated to reflect the current level of support required.

However, people using the service and their relatives told us they were involved as much as possible in the care planning process. A person using the service commented, ''I was involved when they did the assessment and anything new that needs reviewing''.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. We found policies and procedures for managing safety events were in line with current best practice.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Consent for care and support was not always obtained or documented where required to evidence people’s involvement in decision-making. When people had the ability to consent or make decisions, staff had not always obtained their consent to ensure their views and wishes were considered when care was planned. We found that relatives had signed the consent forms, despite service users having capacity.