Mercy & Clara 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered home care service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

Although the provider knew the people well, they didn’t always fully understand the people’s needs when planning their care because people’s needs had not been fully assessed or recorded within the assessment. There was inconsistent information in one person’s care records. However, we received positive feedback from one person’s relative about the initial assessment and how involved they were in the process.

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. For example, mobility and skin care. Referrals were made to other healthcare professionals where needed.

The provider had a system in place for staff to communicate with each other which enabled them to effectively deliver people’s care and support. Staff had access to out of hours support to enable them to seek support and advice when needed. Referrals to other healthcare professionals were made when needed.

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. A relative told us staff were constantly checking their family member’s health and wellbeing and discussed other ideas to best support the person. Care records showed staff were ensuring people were getting their nutritional and hydration needs. The provider told us, “I am always checking what [Name] has been given for food and if staff have recorded how much he has eaten and drank. This is important to support his health.”

Although the provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment for continuous improvement, their care records lacked detail and had inconsistent information to ensure support provided was consistent. We spoke with the registered manager who acknowledge the shortfalls and took action to address this.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not follow recognised best practices when decisions were being made. The provider did not have systems in place to identify and empower people to make decisions for themselves. Although the registered manager understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, records did not demonstrate they applied the principles of the MCA. For example, a mental capacity assessment had not been carried out or recorded at the initial assessment. Moreover, records had conflicting information about people’s capacity. This meant staff did not have the appropriate information about whether people had capacity to make specific decisions about their care. However, despite our findings a relative said, “They [staff] are always respectful of [name] when he says no to something they will respect his wishes. [Name] has cognitive issues, the carers will always involve him or try again later if it is something import like his personal care.”