Care Plus Group (North East Lincolnshire) Limited

This service was not rated as we do not currently rate this type of organisation.

At this inspection we found:

• Local risk registers were not in place and risks identified by service leads were not captured fully on the corporate risk register.
• Patient risk assessments were not accessed by all staff delivering end of life care.
• Learning from incidents was not shared regularly with staff.
• The service contributed to a multi-agency strategy; however staff were not clear about their particular service area.
• There was a lack of clear transition procedures for patients moving between services resulting in the possible delay of delivery of services.
• Staff told us they felt a sense of disconnect between some of the teams delivering end of life care.

However:

• All staff understood how to report incidents and could explain the process confidently.
• Staff had the necessary qualifications and skills to carry out their roles effectively and had regular supervision and appraisals.
• All staff worked proactively to ensure patient care was prioritised.
• Feedback from patients was positive; staff were seen to be caring and compassionate.
• Services were planned and delivered to meets patient’s needs.

This service was not rated as we do not currently rate this type of organisation.

At this inspection we found:

• Staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities and knew how to report concerns.
• Staff had access to up to date evidence based policies, procedures and guidelines and care was provided based on national guidance.
• Staff had the necessary qualifications and skills to carry out their roles effectively and had regular supervision and appraisals.
• There were good examples of multidisciplinary teamwork.
• Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding the Mental Capacity Act.
• Feedback from patients was positive; staff were seen to be caring and compassionate.
• Services were planned and delivered to meet people’s needs. Patients could access services in a timely way.
• Staff spoke positively about working for the organisation and staff engagement was encouraged.
• The organisation engaged well with the public and employed a number of volunteers.

However:

• We were not assured that there were robust processes in place to ensure all staff received feedback about incidents.
• We were not assured that action plans for serious incidents addressed all the issues sufficiently.
• No caseload weighting tools were used to inform staffing levels and data was not used consistently to inform complexity and support staffing.
• Local risk registers were not in place and risks identified by service leads were not captured fully on the corporate risk register.