Kardinal Healthcare 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 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 was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their families were involved in initial assessments and ongoing development of care and support plans. Experienced managers and senior staff carried out assessments and this included information the person wanted staff to know about them, preferences and dislikes. Detailed risk assessments were completed for risks to the person or child and risks to staff. For example, if there was a pet in the building or steep steps which may become slippery in winter. Feedback from people and relatives was positive. One relative said, “Assessed their needs and worked with me to do this, I think they did a great job and it’s why the support has worked so well.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care 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.

People’s plans were detailed and person-centred. Staff told us the details in the plans reflected the needs and wishes of each person. For example, autistic people had plans describing their sensory needs. One staff told us about monitoring a person’s food and hydration needs, “Its normally part of the care plan, depends on the person. For example, one person I support part of their care is eating dinner and drinking. I record the amount and if refused, try again later if needed.”

Support plans and related records viewed showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and practice guidance. For example, oral health support plans were in place. Records identified meetings with people and families that took place and contained relevant information.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. When people received care from a range of different staff, teams, or services, it was co-ordinated effectively.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment, and support. Professionals and partners in care said that the management and staff were effective in information sharing and partnership working. Appropriate and timely referrals were made when needed.

When people needed to go to hospital for example, the staff support the process by ensuring information was shared and communication maintained. A manager explained some people have hospital passports which are documents containing information about the person and their needs and wishes. These can help healthcare staff to support the person when they are admitted to hospital. These documents are created with the person and/or family by the staff and managers.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. The information was updated in real time, for example, if a person had been seen by a health professional, staff supporting them were alerted to the outcome so they could adjust care as needed.

People were involved in regularly monitoring their health, including health assessments and checks where appropriate and necessary with health and care professionals. Where people did not have family or friends to support them to access healthcare, the staff and managers supported them to do so.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent.

The provider was proactive with communication with, and timely referrals to, external professionals and relevant people to ensure that outcomes remained positive for the people they supported.

Outcomes of people’s health and well-being were monitored by staff. Care plans and risk assessments were consistently reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs and to ensure that safe and effective support continued. One staff told us, “If I have any concerns, I email the office or speak to them directly, but in general the outcomes match what the people want. We try to do our best.”

The provider did not always ensure that people’s capacity was assessed in a timely way in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and relevant guidance.The provider did not undertake mental capacity assessments to determine people’s capacity to make non health decisions about their care. Leaders informed us that a GP or social worker would conduct a capacity assessment. However, leaders were not clear in some circumstances they could carry out an assessment and lead a best interest decision meeting. This would in some cases speed up the process and ensure people were always fully supported with in the law.Managers assured us they would seek further knowledge and carry out MCA assessments where appropriate in the future.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) referrals were made to relevant authorities. However, leaders had not been aware the MCA comes into play when a child reaches 16 years of age. Managers assured us they were seeking further training and development for themselves and senior care staff.

Staff provided care within the principles of the MCA, for example, asking for people consent before offering personal care, however the speed at which the MCA assessments were carried out could be improved. People’s views and wishes were taken into account when their care was planned. One relative said, “They always talk through everything they do.”