Galilee Care

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 inadequate. The service was in breach in relation to consent to care and treatment. At this assessment we found this breach had been met since our last inspection and the rating has changed to 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 made sure people’scare and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.People and those who cared for them werenowinvolved in the creation of care plans and risk assessment.People’sneeds wereregularlyreviewedand updated whenpeople’scircumstances changeor incidents occurred.The service communicated with people and supported them in line with their preferences which were shown in their care plans.We found risk assessments were relevant and staffwereprovided withappropriateguidance to manage risk.The Registered Manager told ustheyhave a meeting with peoplewhen writing theriskassessment with them.A family member toldus,“They’re spot on, I can’t fault them, they understand and if there’s a problem they call me and ask to check”.

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. Where people had expressed a preference for particular staff the service constructed rosters, where possible, to support this or if people required two people to support them that one staff member would remain the same. A family member told us, “I’m involved as much as I can be, they had a stroke and since then her speech and understanding is not that great, they can have trouble communicating, the ladies all know their problems now, they’re really good with her, they know what they’re saying”.

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. The service worked with other healthcare services professionals to ensure that people were cared for. We saw the service had referred people when they required specific support or equipment. Staff said if they were delayed, they would inform their manager to ensure that people received their care, or they were told that care would be delayed. The registered manager and staff said now when people's circumstances changed staff would be informed using staff meetings or electronic messaging systems.

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 need for care and support. The service worked with people and their families to keep them safe. Staff told us they tried to encourage independence with the people they support in line with their ability.

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. We saw documents and people told us the service now regularly sought feedback on how people were cared for. We saw notes and evidence of action taken because of incidents or where staff had identified concerns. The service conducted regular spot-checks on staff performance which they used to improve the care that was given. A family member of a person told us “I was impressed before Christmas, the care company attended on a Sunday, the carer was being assessed with my parent, the assessor came, she was watching the girl with (parent), the girl passed, I was impressed with that. It went really well. They were here for about 1.5 hours”.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Care plans documented peoples wishes such as if people wished to administer their own medication. The provider now assessed people’s mental capacity to make decisions with relatives and staff were aware of best interest decisions in their daily care.Quality assurance checks of staff reviewed that people were asked for their consent when appropriate and staff given feedback where it had not been requested. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people fully understood what they were consenting to and the importance of obtaining consent before they deliver care or treatment. Care plans documented if people had capacity to make decisions and formed part of a monthly care plan audit. A member of staff told us “I will always ask if they want to do it themselves or ask for consent”.