Adejom Staffing Care

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 fully assessed prior to receiving a service. There was no evidence to demonstrate when people’s needs changed, they were re-assessed and referred to the relevant healthcare professionals. The provider failed to assess people’s capacity to make decisions about their care and support. There was no evidence that where people lacked capacity, best interest meetings were completed. We found 2 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and the need for consent.

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.

While some of the relatives we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with the care their loved one received, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. A relative told us they were unaware the agency would be supporting their loved one until they arrived at the person's home. Some of the relatives we spoke with had not been involved in the assessment process. We asked another relative if their loved one had a care plan within their house, and they told us they didn’t think they did. A relative told us they were unaware that Adejom Staffing Care could support their loved one with medicines, as this was not shared with them, and their loved one did not receive an assessment of their needs before a service was provided.

While staff we spoke to told us they would recognise and report changes in people's needs, we found staff did not always do this. The provider told us when people's needs changed, they were aware and took action, involving other healthcare professionals when necessary. However, they were unable to consistently demonstrate any evidence to support this. We identified instances where incidents or changes to people's health when the provider was unable to demonstrate what action they took to mitigate risks to people or share information with the staff team.

There were not processes in place to ensure people's needs were assessed when care packages began, or when people's needs changed. The provider was unable to evidence they assessed people's needs prior to providing a service. The provider was unable to produce any assessments completed on any of the people they supported. We identified when people's needs or circumstances changed, this was not updated within people's care plans. For example, one person had a wound, but there was no information within their care plan to inform who was responsible for monitoring, dressing the wound, or who staff should report any concerns to. A person had been identified as being at risk of substance abuse but robust assessment of risk or guidance for staff to follow had not been implemented.

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.

While some of the relatives we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with the care their loved one received, our assessment found care did not meet the expected standards. A relative told us staff did not always document, or report to them when their loved one refused personal care. They told us staff 'sporadically' told them when their loved one refused care, but not for example on day 1, 2, or 3. A relative told us the provider tried to complete an assessment of needs with their loved one who lacked capacity. A relative told us, "No, [my loved one] doesn't have capacity. No, no one asked us about it."

While staff we spoke to told us that they understood people's rights relating to mental capacity, we found that this was not always the case. For example, a relative told us their loved one would stay in the same clothes or put their partners clothes on when confused. Staff failed to report this and identify the person lacked capacity around getting dressed. The relative told us their loved one had a lot of pride, and them being in the wrong clothes would have caused them distress.

The provider failed to assess people's capacity. The provider was unable to evidence capacity had been assessed appropriately, and action had been taken to ensure relevant people were involved in decision making. It was not always clearly documented within people's care plans if they had capacity, and what to do in the event they did not have capacity. For example, when supporting people with dementia, it was not clearly documented if the person had capacity to make any decisions and what action staff should take if the person was unable to make decisions. There was no documentation within people's care plans relating to capacity or decision making.