Solution Care 247 Northamptonshire

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 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.

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 and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Assessments were completed prior to people receiving care, this ensured that people’s needs could be met by staff who had the right skills before care commenced. Assessments included people’s individual care and support needs such as preferred times of calls, religious and cultural needs, communication needs and dietary requirements. People’s needs were regularly re assessed to ensure staff had up to date information about people, this included liaising with families and other professionals. A staff member said, “Some people are supported by unpaid carers, such as family members or friends, I support them by keeping them informed about the person’s care, involving them in care planning and decisions, and listening to their concerns or advice.” Another staff member said, “I work along with the family carers, sharing updates, to make sure the care remains smooth and coordinated.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment 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. The provider used nationally recognised tools to help calculate risk and assess peoples needs, this gave a base for planning peoples care to reduce risk and promote positive outcomes. We saw a tool used for one person which showed they were at risk of deterioration in their wellbeing, this was mitigated as the person had been involved in planning their care and supported with their independence which was an important factor for them in maintaining their wellbeing. A staff member told us, “Waterlow (a tool used for assessing people’s risk of pressure sores) helps me identify the risk of pressure sores, so I can take steps to prevent them, like changing positions and checking the skin regularly. Using these tools ensures my care is safe, effective, and based on recognised standards.”

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 supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. However, staff did not always support people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were encouraged to manage their health and wellbeing independently as much as possible. One person’s wishes to manage a more complex element of their health care independently was fully supported by the staff and management team, however, the manager told us and the care plan detailed that staff should be trained in this more complex support in case support was required from staff. The providers training matrix did not support that staff were trained in this area of care. This had not impacted on the person as they had to date maintained their independence but presented a risk should their health decline.

A relative told us that occasionally staff had not followed a specific element of a routine that supported a person’s wellbeing this had not significantly impacted on the person but had not always been helpful in maintaining structure that was important to the person.

Staff understood the importance of preventative measures and health monitoring to identify early decline in health and seek early medical intervention to prevent ill health. One staff member told us, “I involve people in conversation about their health by asking how they feel and if they don’t feel okay I will ask if they would like to see or call a doctor.” Another staff member said, “We monitor changes in appearance, behaviour, mobility, appetite, or mood and report concerns to senior staff or healthcare professionals as quick as possible.” Staff understood the health benefits of regular exercise and a healthy diet in relation to health and wellbeing and told us they talked about this with the peoples they cared for.

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 provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider had a consent to care, support and treatment policy and procedure which staff could access remotely for guidance.

Where people did not have mental capacity individualised, decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place with appropriate involvement from family and other professionals.

Where people had a lasting power of attorney in place this was recorded and copies kept.

People told us staff sought consent to care at point of delivery. A person told us, "They always ask me before they do anything, they don’t do anything I don’t want them to.” A relative told us that staff only provided care that was consented to in the person’s best interest. A consent record was signed by people or their representative to confirm their consent to the care recorded in the care plan.

Staff had received training in consent which included consent for children, MCA and Deprivation on liberty safeguards [DoLS] and demonstrated a good understanding in this area. One staff member said, “Everyone is assumed to have capacity unless proven otherwise and decisions [in people’s best interest] must respect their rights, promote independence and use the least restrictive option.” Another staff member told us about capacity vs unwise decisions and how people have a right to make unwise decisions it doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have capacity.