Limitless Care 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 75 (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.

The provider met with people and their relatives prior to the commencement of services and also involved partner organisations such as social care teams where appropriate. Access to care and support plans was available to people and families with appropriate permission. Care and support plans were consistent, used language that was easy to understand, and risks were clearly managed and documented. Care and support plans were reviewed to a schedule or based on changing needs – this was tracked by management to ensure consistency.

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.

Care and support plans were co-produced with people and relatives. Reviews were undertaken to a schedule or when changes were noted by care staff in the course of duties.

For people that needed it, support with nutrition and hydration was provided considering care needs and individual preferences, which was all included in care plans and updates recorded in handover notes.

People and relatives reported care needs were met and staff were knowledgeable. One comment included, “my care needs are being met… I don’t feel rushed,” while another described care as “above and beyond really.”

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.

Staff described effective systems for identifying and responding to changes in needs, including updating care plans and communicating through digital systems and secure messaging platforms. They reported sufficient time to review care plans and deliver care, and unexpected changes to schedules were covered by the team well, as evidenced by people’s feedback that they would be called if a delay was anticipated.

Teamcommunication was described as strong, with effective coordination between staff and management. Staff understood how to respond to health concerns such as infections or pressure damage, involving GPs, district nurses, or emergency services when required.

Families noted that communication was a strength, with the provider supporting a variety of communication methods to suit personal preferences as well as considering accessibility needs.

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.

As a domiciliary care agency, the levels of support people needed as well as their capacity varied. Some people also had the support of informal carers in addition to the provider. We saw good evidence of communication and updated care plans which addressed supporting people to live healthier and more independent lives. This included references to menu suggestions to promote a varied diet, local sources of practical help for people with limited budgets and contact details for GP practices and clinics. Changing needs were also noted and communicated appropriately.

People told us they were supported with nutrition and hydration, with carers adapting to preferences and needs. Comments included, “they feed me well,” and “I always get what I want… they make sure there is water… and enough milk.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care and support records were reviewed and analysed on the electronic care system to enable consistent monitoring of people’s outcomes. For example, where carers had supported someone to have a more varied diet, this was reviewed to monitor individual health outcomes. Relatives were encouraged to report progress where people themselves could not.

Supportfor improving quality of life focused on promoting independence, building relationships, and encouraging positive outcomes over time. A quality-of-life tool was used to monitor this at review meetings, using a holistic approach focused on improvement.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Documentation around consent was robust and consistent. Consent was understood, with staff seeking permission before delivering care and adapting approaches for people lacking capacity. Decisions were made in line with best interests, involving next of kin and known preferences wherever possible.

People told us consent was consistently respected, with one relative telling us, “They explain what they are going to do,” and another noted, “they will ask him if he wants to get up yet.”