Loving Angels Care (West and North Northamptonshire)

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

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 assessed when they started to use the service which were reviewed regularly the service utilised an electronic care records system , which both people and their relatives had access to. Paper copies were also maintained within people’s homes. Most of the care plans we reviewed were detailed and person-centred. However, there is currently no system in place to confirm whether staff have read and understood care plans. The management team assured us they were committed to exploring an interactive feature within the system to confirm staff comprehension of individual's needs.

The provider did not always plan and deliver 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 management team utilised best practice tools, such as waterlow risk assessment (a risk assessment to identify those at risk of developing pressure ulcers). However, they did not consistently follow their own guidance. For example, one individual had a water low score of 21, which according to the management team’s guidance, a GP should be contacted immediately if the score is 20 or above. The GP had not been called, and no rationale had been documented for this decision. This concern was raised and discussed with the management team. The management team carried out audits and spot checks to ensure people were receiving their care as planned.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They tried to make sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

There were records in place that provided other health and social care with the information needed to ensure a smooth transition between services, this included their medical history and their daily needs.

The registered manager told us, and we saw evidence of them working with the safeguarding team.

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.

We saw evidence of people being supported with referrals to GP, occupational therapist (OT)and district nurses when needed. Additionally, people were also supported to attend their volunteer placements and paid employment roles thus promoting their independence and community engagement.

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.

During this assessment, records showed 6-monthly reviews were taking place, with relevant questions. However, these reviews would benefit from moving away from key questions and becoming more outcome- focused, this was discussed with the registered manager who acknowledged our feedback and assured us this would be further explored. One person told us the carer visited three times a week and was more for companionship. The relative said that the same carer comes and has built up a good relationship with their family member; and is now able to take out on short walking trips together.

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

Care staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and gave good examples of how they sought people's consent before providing care. We reviewed 11 individuals' mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions. Not all MCAs had been fully completed, indicating further work was required. This was discussed with the registered manager, and they assured us appropriate actions would be taken to address this.