Allfor Care Croydon

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.

At our last assessment, we found the service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person-centred care and need for consent. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

At our last assessment, we found people’s needs were not always assessed to ensure staff could provide support effectively. For example, there were no specific care plans for conditions, such as epilepsy, dementia, asthma, shortness of breath and stroke. At this assessment, we found that people’s needs were assessed and reviewed effectively. A person told us, “Reviews of care plans are very thorough.” Another person said, “They do understand my needs.” Relatives shared similar feedback with us, with one saying, “The agency have reviewed [family member’s] care multiple times” and another, “[The provider] checks we’re happy with everything, and the plan gets updated.”

Staff had clear guidance within people’s care records to support their specific needs. For example, where people were diagnosed with epilepsy, care records detailed what could trigger seizures, how they presented, how long they usually lasted, and people’s usual pattern of recovery. Care records also stated the actions staff should take to support people during and following seizures. This included the importance of recording the duration of the seizure, keeping the person safe and when it is necessary to phone the emergency services.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and support 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.

At our last assessment, we found care plans for people with dementia or cognitive impairment did not include information about how the condition affected their daily lives or what symptoms staff should monitor as the condition progressed. Similarly, there were no specific plans to guide staff on how to support people’s skin integrity. At this assessment, we found people’s care records included important information, including details about people’s health. This meant staff had guidance around effectively meeting people’s needs and preferences.

People who were living with dementia had dementia care plans in place. These detailed how the condition presented and how it was likely to progress. Dementia care plans detailed people’s personal care and communication needs, along with their preferences, support needs and involved professionals. Similarly, people with a learning disability were supported with health and communication passports, which contained information including people’s medicines, allergies and how they communicated distress.

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 received their care and support from regular staff who were familiar with their needs. A relative told us, “We get the same people coming in. They are friendly, good people.” When required, care staff supported people to meet with healthcare professionals, while office-based staff liaised with health and social care services. A designated staff member acted as the main point of contact for GPs. This enabled the provider to maintain an up-to-date picture of people’s care and support including their changing needs, changes to medicines and the progress and outcome of referrals.

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.

The provider supported people to access healthcare services whenever required. Following agreement with people and their relatives, staff made referrals to healthcare professionals to assess people’s needs. For example, referrals were made to speech and language therapy and specialist nursing for assessments. These assessments were incorporated in people’s care records and provided staff with guidance on meeting people’s needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and support 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.

At our last assessment, we found the provider failed to review and update care plans. At this assessment, we found all the care records we looked at had been reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs and preferences. People’s care records were electronic. The system prompted office staff when reviews were required and prompted care staff when essential tasks had not been logged onto the system as completed during care visits.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and support.

At our last assessment, we found the service did not consistently adhere to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. This was because mental capacity assessments did not confirm whether people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their medicines. At this assessment, we found people were supported in line with legislation.

People consented to the care and support they received. A person told us that staff “absolutely ask for consent”. People’s consent, best interests’ decisions and, where necessary, details of their lasting power of attorney were recorded in care records. Care records also contained mental capacity assessments for specific decisions, for example, consent to receive medicine and consent for people’s photographs to be uploaded to their electronic care records.