Caring Care Limited

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 67 (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. People and their relatives told us they had been involved in the assessment process. A person told us, “They involved me and my husband and took a good amount of time going through everything. We are reviewing it with a social worker tomorrow.” A relative told us, “Someone from Caring Care came in to do an initial assessment and went through it with us.” Staff told us they accessed people’s assessments and care plans using an electronic system to help guide them on providing people with support. Guidance was in place however some of this was not specific to the person. For example, where people had specific conditions there was generic guidance in place for staff, but this did not always give the staff detail on what the individual impact of these conditions were so improvements were needed. However, speaking to staff their knowledge of people was good, and this did not have any impact on people’s care. The registered manager confirmed they will make changes to their processes to ensure the assessments and care plans were more specific for people going forward.

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. People and their relatives told us they were happy with how the provider supported them and could share examples. A person told us, “They are forward thinking and trying to come up with ideas how they can do things for us better and safely.” A relative told us, “[Person’s name] can eat themselves, but they must put it in front of them. They encourage them to have options because if it was left up to [person’s name], they would choose the same thing every day. They give me peace of mind.” Partners told us staff worked to support people to maintain independence and regain skills. We saw the assessment system used evidence-based tools to manage risks some risks, such as environmental risks, continence care and moving and handling. The provider had systems in place which were aligned to the right support, right care, right culture guidance as they supported some people with a learning disability.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Partners told us the provider collaborated well with them to support people to maintain and regain their independence with communication systems in place to ensure people had continuous care. Staff communicated about people using the electronic system and any updates regarding people's needs or care requirements were made immediately. Where required the provider made referrals to other agencies. For example, they liaised with district nurses’ speech and language therapists and other health professionals to seek support and guidance to meet people’s needs.

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. People told us staff supported them to manage health needs and seek medical advice and care when needed. Relatives told us they felt people had support to access health professionals when needed. A relative told us, “They look after [person’s name] well, if they are not well, they will let the office know and they will ring the Doctor.” People’s health needs were considered as part of the assessment process. Guidance on how to support people to manage their health was in place, however this was sometimes generic and not related to the individual and how their illness impacted their life or the individual support they needed. The registered manager acted swiftly on this feedback and updated care plans with individual information following the inspection. We will check consistency of this at our next inspection.

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. People and their relatives told us they were actively involved in monitoring people’s care and the service provided aimed to continually improve people’s lives. A relative told us, “The staff included me in [person’s name] care and keep me updated.” People told us they felt supported and, in some cases, could share how things had improved for them since using the service. Relatives described having someone to check on their relatives as an improvement. Partners told us staff worked well with the reablement model, and this had improved outcomes for individuals. The provider had a system in place to regularly review care packages; they contacted local authority commissioners on a regular basis to increase and decrease care packages where needed.

The provider had not consistently ensured the systems in place to assess people’s capacity to consent to their care and support were used in all cases. People told us the staff sought consent before offering them support. Staff understood consent and had received training in the mental capacity act. The provider had systems in place to record people’s consent to their care. Consent forms were in place; however, some had been signed by other people without identifying whether the person signing had the correct legal status to sign on behalf of the person. The provider also had a system in place to assess people’s capacity to consent to their care and record decisions taken in their best interests. However, we found some instances where people’s assessments indicated they may lack capacity to make some decisions, and the assessments had not been completed in the system in all cases. The registered manager took prompt action to address this following the inspection and updated the audit system to ensure all relevant assessments were in place for people going forward. We will check the effectiveness of this system at the next inspection.