Your Quality Care Services Limited (East Grinstead)

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.

We identified shortfalls in relation to consent.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and relatives confirmed they were involved in creating and reviewing care plans. A relative said, “Both [person] and I are involved in creating the care plan.”

People had their needs assessedbefore they started to receive care from the service. The registered manager told us this was done face to face to ensure the service could accommodate a person’s needs and times of their visits.

Staff confirmed they had time to read people’s care plans. A staff member said, “The care plans are person-centred and tailored to each client's individual preferences, needs, strengths, and choices. I make sure I read and follow each care plan carefully, treating every client with respect, dignity, compassion, and kindness.”

Care plans were regularly reviewed. However, we found some care plans and risk assessments lacked necessary detail. For example, when assessing people’s communication needs. In response to our feedback care plans and risk assessments were updated to reflect people’s needs.

The service 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.

Records showed people were supported with food and drinks. Daily notes were informative of what support was provided during their care visits.

People and relatives confirmed staff supported them with meals. A relative said, “The carers are always suggesting and providing interesting meals to encourage [person] to eat regularly. And water, tea etc is always provided and encouraged at each visit.”

People and their relatives were empowered to manage their healthcare appointments independently.

Relatives confirmed staff went with people to health appointments when necessary.

The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Relatives confirmed people were supported to go for walks.

The provider ensured they had an open channel of communication between them, people and relatives. This meant any concerns regarding people’ health could be raised quickly.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

When required, people’s fluid intake was monitored to ensure they remained hydrated and to identify any early signs of dehydration.

The provider had a system in place to check people’s daily notes. This supported the management to monitor the quality of care provided and identify any concerns or changes in people's needs early on.

The principles of the MCA were not always being followed, and people’s capacity was not assessed.

The provider did not work within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 or their policy. Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care the records did not show that a decision specific mental capacity assessment had been completed. This meant people were at risk of their right not being upheld.

The provider started to take action during our assessment to address this shortfall, however the updated records were still not in accordance with the MCA.

Where necessary, people with legal authority or responsibility can make decisions within the requirements of the MCA.

People’s care plans contained information on who held this legal responsibility, however this information was incorrect. This meant the provider did not have an effective overview of who can lawfully act on person’s behalf.

Staff told us they supported people to make choice in their everyday life. A staff member said, “I encourage people to do as much as they can for themselves while providing support where needed, promoting their independence and confidence.”