Archived: Engage Care Services - Main Office Also known as Engage Care Services 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

Engage Care Services was only supporting 1 person. Therefore, it was not possible to assess all areas as there was only 1 care plan and staff team. We were unable to compare how the provider may assess and meet a range of people’s needs due to only 1 person being supported.

The person’s needs were assessed. However, detailed information for staff to follow for specific support routines was not recorded. Staff supported the person to make, and attend, medical appointments.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The person said they were able to tell the staff what they wanted for their support.

Staff said they had access to the person’s care plan and knew the person’s needs. They discussed the person’s support needs at team meetings.

The person’s needs were assessed, and guidance provided for staff to meet these identified needs. However, detailed information for staff to follow for specific support routines was not recorded.

We were only able to view 1 person’s assessments. Therefore, we could not judge if improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to person centred guidance being provided for staff to meet people’s needs, instead of standard statements being used.

The person said staff cooked the meals they asked for and liked.

Staff said they planned with the person what they wanted to eat each day and then made this for them.

However, we could not assess whether improvements had been made where staff were supporting people of a different culture to their own.

Guidance had been provided for supporting the person with their medical conditions, including signs to observe that meant the person was deteriorating and what action should be taken.

We were only able to view 1 person’s assessments. Therefore, we could not judge if improvements had been made since the last inspection with regard to supporting people appropriately with their nutritional needs.

The person said the staff team had been trained by the physiotherapist on the exercises they needed to do. They said, “The NHS physio trained the staff and gave all the details on paper with drawings. All staff know how to do it now and do twice a day unfailingly.”

Staff explained they would support the person to arrange medical appointments and the transport to attend these appointments.

We were told the registered manager was not initially cooperating with a new provider to ensure a smooth transition of care. This was subsequently resolved.

The registered manager hadn’t initially cooperated with partner agencies to support the ongoing care the person received

The person said the staff team supported them with their medical conditions, including supporting to make and attend appointments.

Staff explained how they supported the person to attend their medical appointments and complete their daily exercise routines.

Information about the person’s medical needs were available within the care plan and the person’s home. An emergency grab bag was kept in case of an emergency hospital admission.

The person had no specific feedback in this area.

Staff said they monitored the person’s health and checked their skin integrity daily.

The clinical lead visited the person each month to discuss their support and if any changes were needed.

The person said staff involved them in making choices about their day.

Staff explained how the person was involved in decisions and choices. Staff said they explained to the person what support they were going to provide and sought their consent before doing so.

The person supported had the capacity to make their own decisions and choices. We were unable to assess if improvements had bene made in reviewing people’s capacity to consent to their support.