GGW 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

People's needs were assessed before they received a service from the provider which staff used to develop person centred care plans. The care and support people received was routinely monitored to continuously improve it.

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.

People and their relatives told us their or their family members needs were assessed before they first began to use the service. They told us they were active participants in this process.

Staff that we spoke with told us they had access to care plans and were given information about people’s support needs through the electronic care plans which they were able to access on their phones. These contained details about people’s support needs.

At the last inspection, we found that although assessments of people's needs were carried out, they did not always accurately reflect their needs or the care provided and sometimes contained contradictory information. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations. People's assessed needs and wishes were used to help develop personalised care plans for people. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and were all up to date.

People and their relatives told us that staff delivered care to them in line with their care plans and their needs.

Staff told us they followed guidance in care plans when supporting people.

People did not give us any feedback with regard to this quality statement, however the records we reviewed, and staff feedback indicated there were no concerns in this area.

Managers and staff told us they worked with external bodies and professionals and welcomed their views, advice, and best practice ideas.

Feedback from the local authority was that the provider had engaged with them regarding producing action plans to improve the service.

The provider worked in partnership with various community-based health and social care professionals and agencies including, GPs, training providers, social workers and the relevant Local Authorities. Care plans included details of external health and social care professionals that were involved in supporting people. We saw evidence in care records were the provider had liaised with external professionals to support people.

People using the service told us the staff liaised with the relevant health professionals to support them to lead healthier lives. One person told us how staff worked with, and followed instructions from, the district nurses in relation to their pressure sores. They said the staff monitored them and applied creams and their pressure sores were now getting better.

Staff demonstrated good awareness of signs they had to look out for which could indicate people they supported needed extra support. They were familiar health conditions that people presented with and how they would manage these.

People were supported to stay healthy and well. Care plans detailed their health care needs and conditions and the action staff needed to take to keep people fit and well. Care notes showed staff monitored people in relation to their health conditions such as pressure sores. Training records showed staff received the appropriate training in areas that were relevant in supporting people to lead healthier lives. This included Nutrition and Hydration in Older Adults, Dementia Care and Diabetes.

People told us managers and senior staff who visited them at home repeatedly asked for their views about what the service id well and what they could do better. One person said, “The managers often ring me at home to see how I am and if there’s anything they could do for them.” The provider used a range of methods to gather people’s views about what they did well or might do better. For example, this included regular telephone and in-person contact during call monitoring checks and visits, as well as routine opportunities to participate in the providers customer satisfaction surveys.

It was clear from feedback we received from the managers they recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement to ensure they maintained good-quality, person-centred and safe care for people they supported. The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored and checked by the office-based managers and an external quality assurance consultant the provider had recruited specifically for this role. The provider valued and listened to the views of staff who were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during regular telephone and in-person contact during call visits and participation in the provider customer satisfaction surveys.

The provider had systems in place that promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people receiving care at home, their relatives, and staff. The outcome of all the providers audits, monitoring checks and feedback the providers received from various stakeholders were routinely analysed to identify issues, learn lessons and develop action plans to improve the service they provided people.

People told us they consented to the care and support they received from staff at the service. They said staff were careful to ask for their consent before supporting them with personal care. People told us they were involved in making decisions related to their care and had signed care plans and agreements in relation to call visit times and days and the support needed at each visit.

Staff that we spoke with were aware of the importance of obtaining consent and agreement from people before supporting them. Staff told us people’s care plans made it clear what decisions people could make for themselves.

Care plans clearly described what decisions people could make for themselves. This was included in a section related to communication and consent. There was asection in relation to mental capacity which gave details about decisions that people could make for themselves and those that they needed some support in and also family members or friends that were involved in people’s lives. Training records showed that staff received The Mental Capacity Act and Liberty Protection Safeguards training. There was a lack of detail in some of the records we saw in relation to recording of best interests decisions where people were not able to consent to aspects of their care and support. We spoke with the registered manager about recording these decisions more clearly and including the names and roles of the people involved in these best interest decisions. The registered manager assured us they would include this as part of the next care plan review cycle.