Careuk247 Home Care Cambridgeshire

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 63 (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.

People's needs were not always effectively assessed and reviewed. We found care plans and risk assessments lacked sufficient detail in relation to the support people needed and their individual preferences.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding their involvement in the care planning process, and how often this was completed. For example, 1 person told us they had a review completed over the telephone but had not seen a copy of their most current care plan. One person’s relative told us a review had been completed in person, and they spoke through the care plan. Another said they were unaware of a care plan being in place.

Some people also told us when unfamiliar staff visited, they were not confident the staff knew what their needs were. We therefore could not be confident staff familiarised themselves with people’s needs prior to their visit. We shared this feedback with the registered manager for their review and action.

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 registered manager ensured relevant best practice guidance was available and shared with staff. This included guidance on how to keep safe during heatwaves, and specific information sharing around diabetes management and support. The registered manager demonstrated how this was shared on a continuous basis during staff meetings and via electronic information sharing systems.

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 registered manager promoted positive information sharing processes within the service. This included working with other providers to promote effective transfer of care when people moved between services. The registered manager ensured sufficient handovers took place to support continuity of care in these instances.

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.

Changes in people's health needs, or amendment of care regimes, such as nutritional support, were not always accurately reflected in care records. This reduced assurance that information was consistently available to guide staff and support the timely review and delivery of appropriate care. However, regular staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's individual needs, preferences and how they wished to be supported.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records relating to skin integrity concerns were not always sufficiently detailed. For example, information about the location, size, appearance and progression of wounds or skin damage was not consistently recorded. This limited the provider's ability to effectively monitor outcomes, assess whether interventions were working, identify deterioration, and ensure concerns were reviewed and escalated in a timely manner.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People were generally supported by staff who understood their preferences and involved them in decisions about their care. However, records did not always clearly demonstrate that consent had been obtained and documented for all aspects of care and treatment, such as the use of photographs to monitor and report skin concerns, or when providing physical support. While this was not a consistent issue for everyone, gaps in recording reduced assurance that people's choices, wishes and agreement to care were always sought.