Advance Healthcare (Pine Court)

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 under the previous provider, 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.

This service scored 58 (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 ensure people’s assessed needs and care plans were reflective of their individual health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. People had an assessment of their needs, and a care plan was produced when they began using the service. However, these sometimes lacked detail and were not always person centred. For example, 1 care plan had a range of fact sheets included for staff about health conditions which were not reflective of the person’s individual needs. Despite this, staff were aware of people’s needs and could describe how they supported people. The registered manager was aware of the shortfalls with the current assessment and care planning process and there were changes planned.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People’s specific needs were not always clearly recorded within their care plans, and therefore staff did not always have accurate and up to date information to meet people’s needs. However, people were happy with the care and support they received, and staff could describe how they supported people to meet their health and support needs. The provider was aware of gaps in their assessment and care planning documentation; however changes had not been made at the time of the assessment.

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. People told us communication was excellent between the staff and all staff were aware of people’s needs. One person told us, “Information between the staff is good as every visit they all know how I have been during the day, and they ask how I am.” Staff could tell us how they communicated about people’s needs. The registered manager ensured staff were kept up to date on any changes in the service and with people’s care needs.

The provider did not always ensure care plans included information on how people should be supported to manage their health and wellbeing. Partners told us the provider promoted people’s health and wellbeing; however, care planning was not always reflective of this, and the advice was not consistently implemented. Staff could describe people’s health needs; however, this was not always reflected in people’s care plans. The provider had recognised the gaps in people’s care records and had a plan in place to make changes. However, these had not been implemented at the time of the assessment, and we could not be assured people were receiving the support they needed.

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 andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s care delivery was being monitored, however where concerns were identified about missing information in people’s care records there was no documented action taken to ensure people had received their planned care. People’s care plans were reviewed on an annual basis and more frequently if needs changed. However, some care plans had information which was not accurate included, and this had not been identified. This meant we could not be assured people’s care plans were being routinely monitored.

The provider did not always ensure people’s rights were considered when delivering care and treatment. People told us staff sought verbal consent before delivering care and support. Staff told us they understood how to seek consent from people. The provider had a policy in place to support the assessment of mental capacity. However, where people’s care records indicated they had an impairment which may affect decision making, mental capacity assessments and decision specific best interest discussions were not clearly recorded. This meant we could not be assured people were having their rights protected.