Ablecross Limited Also known as Ablecross Care Services

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 ensured effective care and treatment by assessing and reviewing individuals’ health, wellbeing, and communication needs, while also considering staff compatibility. An electronic care planning app was used to match staff and individuals based on language, preferences, and other factors, with final decisions made by the senior team.

A robust assessment process was in place, carried out in collaboration with local authorities. Assessments were conducted at locations and times convenient to the person or their next of kin, with urgent cases handled by one of ten Trusted Assessors who could begin care immediately. Staff used an electronic tablet device to capture assessment details in real time, with care plans completed within 48–72 hours. People were encouraged to read and contribute to their care plans before signing, although this could be challenging when families preferred to delay involvement. In such cases, staff made efforts to gather accurate information from available sources, such as referrer care plans.

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.

Staff knew about people’s individual needs and nutritional requirements and had the training they needed to support people effectively.

Most people were happy with how staff supported them with their nutritional requirements, they told us, “They know what they are doing with breakfast, lunch and personal care. They are thorough,” and “I buy microwave meals, make sandwiches and Weetabix for breakfast. I do the shopping. I have said they can give my relative anything they want to eat; it’s little and often.”

Care plans included information about individuals’ nutritional and cultural preferences, along with guidance on how they should be supported. For example, 1 person’s preferred meals aligned with their religious beliefs and cultural background, typically consisting of traditional dishes. They expressed a preference for food that is warm, soft, and easy to chew, and noted a dislike for overly spicy meals.

The provider had effective systems in place to support collaborative working across staff teams and services. Communication was promoted through regular meetings, supervision, handovers, and open QA (question and answer) sessions, enabling staff to raise and resolve concerns. Feedback from staff, service users, and stakeholders was actively gathered to inform service improvements. A person-centred approach was used when matching carers with clients to enhance compatibility and care quality. Staff had access to a Speak Up Guardian, ensuring a safe and confidential route for raising issues. Leadership promoted transparency and accountability, fostering a culture of openness and professional collaboration.

People were supported to access medical professionals by staff when needed. A relative told us, “They [staff] did go over and above when the noticed my relative’s back and knowing what to do about it.” And “If [family member] was unwell they would call me.”

Staff told us if they had concerns about a person's health, they would speak to the person or their relatives where appropriate. If the person required support to contact a doctor, they would contact the doctor for them.
A staff member told us, “I understand health concerns by keeping communication open with the service users, listening when they say they feel unwell. If I see deterioration, I escalate quickly. For instance, with a urinary tract infection, I would note increased agitation, confusion, or a change in toilet patterns, and I would contact the nurse or their GP.”

Care plans contained information about healthcare needs including details of professionals involved in people’s care and treatment, so staff knew who to contact if they had concerns about people.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to drive continuous improvement. Outcomes were consistently positive, meeting both clinical standards and the expectations of individuals.

Care plans were personalised and clearly documented people’s desired outcomes, along with guidance for staff on how to support them. Regular reviews were conducted, incorporating feedback from people and their families to identify areas for improvement. One relative told us, “I am familiar with [person’s] care plan, which we discuss with the coordinator on a regular basis.”

The provider ensured people were informed of their rights around consent and consistently respected these when delivering person-centred care. All staff had completed training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and a newly appointed clinical and governance lead now facilitates monthly sessions with team leaders and Trusted Assessors. These sessions focus on practical scenarios around capacity, with learning cascaded to wider teams.

Staff demonstrated strong understanding of the MCA and how they gain consent before providing care. One staff member said, “I support people’s human rights by respecting their choices and giving them control over their care. I always assume capacity unless proven otherwise and support decision-making in the least restrictive way.” Another added, “I follow the care plan and listen to the person. If they have capacity, they choose their clothes. If not, I help by showing options and making a good choice.”

The provider described their decision-making approach: every person is presumed to have capacity, even if they make decisions others may view as unwise. Decisions are led by the individual, with family input respected but not overriding. Where concerns arise, the provider escalates to commissioners to initiate a multi-disciplinary or best interest meeting.