Archived: Best Solutions Health Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This key question has been rated inadequate. We reviewed 5 quality statements for this key question. People and their relatives told us they were happy with their care. However processes in place did not support staff to treat people as individuals or offer people choice.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us staff show kindness, compassion and dignity when providing care, however there were no systems in place to monitor this.

Management told us they liaise with relatives to gather verbal feedback on their care and services provided, however this was not formally captured. Staff told us they understood dignity however this was not recorded in the care plan.

We did not receive any concerns from partners and stakeholders.

Although people and their relatives told us staff treat people as individuals and can meet their needs and preferences, they were not involved in their care planning.

The provider had failed to ensure people’s needs, preferences choices were assessed to effectively provide care and support to people. Management told us people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and backgrounds and protected characteristics are an important part of care provided. However, we did find care records lacked detail in these areas. The provider had failed to ensure people’s needs, preferences choices were assessed to effectively provide care and support to people.

Processes failed to demonstrate how the service treated people as individuals. Care plans lacked detail on how people prefer to be supported. There was no person-centred details recorded in care plans. The service had an Equality and Diversity policy.

We did not find evidence people were harmed but this was a breach of regulation 9 (person-centred care) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014.

Although people and relatives told us carers supports them with maintaining independence and treated people with respect however there were no systems to monitor this.

Although staff and management told us they put people's dignity and independence at the centre of the care provided, this was not evidenced in their care records.

Processes did not ensure people were involved in making decisions about their care and daily lives. Care plans did not demonstrate how the provider offered people choice and control over their care, treatment and well being.

Although people and relatives told us staff responds to any immediate changes and they have no concerns about the care provided, we found people were not always referred to health care professionals when required

The provider did not evidence robust processes to respond to people’s immediate needs. The registered manager told us they put people's needs, views and wishes first and respond to changes quickly. Staff told us they update care plans for changes on their devices or document any incidents on their devices. However, in care records we found incidents without details recorded and there was no follow up or review.

The provider could not evidence how they support staff with their well being. Management told us they care about and promote the well being of their staff and provided support for staff to be able to deliver person centred care. Staff told us they feel supported by management however, when we asked staff about supervision and appraisal staff could not recall having an appraisal. Staff told us they have supervision although this was not regular. A staff member told us “We have supervisions yes, but sometimes the gap is longer if they are busy in the office” another said “yes we have supervisions sometimes in the office sometimes just on the phone.”

The provider did not have processes in place to support staff. The service had various policies to support staff for example an appraisal policy and a supervision policy. However, policies were not followed, for example there was no evidence of staff supervisions, appraisals or staff meetings during our site visit. Staff supervisions were sent to us following our site visit however these lacked details and did not evidence meaningful supervision.

This placed people at risk of harm. This was a breach of regulation 18 (Staffing) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.