Adopt Healthcare Ltd

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 a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has improved to requires improvement. Staff had guidance and new processes on how to assess people’s needs and had plans on how to mitigate risks. The provider had gained support from an external consultant to populate a draft care plan to guide the registered manager on the thorough completion of these. There were enough staff who had been suitable trained and recruited safely.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to get feedback for this quality statement. However, we reviewed the new pre assessment procedure in place which would lend itself if completed robustly to assess people’s needs prior to commencing cares.

The registered manager understood their role in assessing people’s needs and had a new pre-admission process and document to aid in the completion of this. Staff told us how they worked with the registered manager to ensure previous service users’ needs were met.

The provider has a new process for assessing people’s needs prior to commencing packages of care. This process is detailed and if completed robustly should capture sufficient information about people to enable the provider to assess whether the service can meet their needs. As there were no service users at the time of the assessment, we were unable to see how this process had been used and implemented effectively and successfully. Therefore, we cannot be assured of the quality and consistency of the process which is to be used.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, however the provider received a compliment from a relative of the most recent service user which detailed the way in which the service and staff had cared for their family members. They stated their family members received good quality care. The comment mentioned the 'excellent care all staff provided' to their family.

Staff told us how they read people's care plans and their registered manager updated these, so they always had relevant information to support them.

The provider did not have any service users in receipt of a regulated activity at the time of this assessment, therefore we have not been able to gather evidence for this evidence category under this quality statements. This means we do not have evidence or information to review the score.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to get feedback for this quality statement. However, on reviewing the providers documents we could see records were being kept demonstrating partnership working with other care services, as well as within the team.

Feedback from staff and leaders: The registered manager described how they have a new system in place to capture partnership working with other professionals to promote healthier lives, such as working with the GP, pharmacy and district nurses. Whilst there was no one at the time of assessment in receipt of regulated activity we were able to review the professional contacts log for the last service user since our last inspection.

We have not received feedback from external stakeholders specifically relating to this quality statement. However, we have had general feedback from the social workers in the local authority safeguarding team. The feedback was not positive for the provider with themes including a lack of co-operation and responsiveness to their safeguarding enquiries. The provider has refuted this; therefore, we are unable to be assured of effective partnership working.

The provider now has systems in place to log and monitor involvement of other professionals in people's care. The provider had also recently worked with a care home where the last service user had transitioned to. This showed an ability to share information safely and securely and for the best outcome for the person.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. Evidence gathered on assessment did not contribute to this evidence category.

The registered manager told us they had good working relationships with the social worker teams and had regularly received requests from them to take new people into the service. However, following our last inspection the feedback from the local authority safeguarding team contradicts this and suggests there has been a breakdown of communication between the two professional services.

The provider did not have any service users in receipt of a regulated activity at the time of this assessment, therefore we have not been able to gather evidence for this evidence category under this quality statements. This means we do not have evidence or information to review the score.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. Evidence gathered on assessment did not contribute to this evidence category.

Staff explained how they worked well with the registered manager and provided examples of how they were able to improve outcomes for service users on end-of-life care, and for those with specific communication needs. Comments included, "[Service user] used hearing aids. They were supported by ensuring that the hearing aid was always in good working condition, and we changed the battery once is week."

The provider did not have any service users in receipt of a regulated activity at the time of this assessment, therefore we have not been able to gather evidence for this evidence category under this quality statements. This means we do not have evidence or information to review the score.

There were no service users in receipt of regulated activity during this assessment, therefore we were unable to gain feedback for this quality statement. However, we have reviewed the previous service users care documentation and can see clear involvement of the person and their representative in completion of the care plan and providing consent for cares.

Staff told us how they gained consent to provide cares to people, and described the actions they would take if someone was to refuse cares. Staff showed a good understanding of promoting someone's autonomy to make decisions about their care. The registered manager explained the process in place to gain consent from new service users and their relatives to consent to the cares captured in care documentation.

The provider did not have any service users in receipt of a regulated activity at the time of this assessment. However, we were able to review the last service users care plan and risk assessments and we saw improvements had been made to the quality of the documentation since our last inspection. Consent to cares was included in the recent update of the care plan which had been implemented with the support of an external consultant.