Care 4 All 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

People’s needs were not always full assessed or explored. There was no evidence people’s care was regularly reviewed. People told us they were involved in their care planning

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.

Assessments around specific risk areas were not completed, for example, moving and positioning, skin integrity, catheter care. Care plans contained conflicting information.

Staff confirmed people meet with senior staff before using the service, allowing for a thorough discussion of care needs, potential risks, and strategies to ensure safety. Although we were told this, records did not reflect care needs and risks were fully assessed or regularly reviewed.

Relatives told us the registered manager met with them prior to care commencing to discuss care needs. However records did not reflect this.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Where people may have lacked capacity to make certain decisions. There was no evidence of Mental capacity assessments completed or best interests meetings taking place.

Relatives told us there is a continuity of staff. One relative said, "Having the same [staff] has been really good for [name of person]. Another relative said, “[Name of person] will make it clear when he doesn’t want to do something. The staff engage verbally with [name of person] who will respond either by saying no or with hand signals. Staff will revisit the activity or offer choices later in the day.

Staff described having open communication with people and their relatives so they could actively participate in care decisions. Others said they would ask for clients consent. Care staff confirmed they had received MCA training and were able to describe the principles of the MCA. However we did not find evidence of formal MCA assessments or best interest decision making records.