ILS24Health Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We identified a breach of safe care and treatment in respect of how the service supported people’s independence, choice and control and responded to people’s immediate needs.

People’s care plans contained person centred information on their routines, wishes and preferences with regards to how their care was delivered. People’s care was shaped as much as possible around those wishes and preferences. We found however, not all of people’s individual needs and risks specific to them were properly assessed and considered when planning their care. This increased the risk of some areas of people’s care not being individualised or appropriate.

People’s independence was supported but some of the activities people were supported to undertake had not been properly risk assessed which meant staff lacked guidance on how to support them to be independent in a safe way to prevent harm.

The provider and registered manager had conducted regular monthly reviews with people. However, they had not identified that risks in the provision of person centred care were not properly assessed and managed. The provider and registered manager did not have sufficient oversight of people’s care to ensure their immediate needs were met. We found gaps or inconsistencies in the care provided to people in respect of bowel management, PEG management, repositioning, pressure area care and medicines.

People’s relatives told us staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect. Staff spoken with knew people well and spoke with genuine warmth about the people they supported.

People relatives told us staff were kind, caring and supported people with the things they needed help with for example, washing and dressing, mobilising and eating and drinking. Staff told us they had time to get to know the people they were caring for and enjoyed supporting them. One staff member told us, “It is a happy environment, people are happy, and I feel like we are helping them”.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s relatives told us staff were kind and treated their loved one with respect. A relative told us, “The girls are young, energetic and good for [name of person].” Another said staff were, “All friendly and smiley.”

Staff felt the provider put people first and treated them well. One staff member described the service as, “Respectful, caring and person centred.”

Staff spoken with knew people well and spoke with genuine warmth about the people they supported. Staff knew how to protect people’s privacy and dignity and were able to give examples of how they did this when supporting people with personal care.

Partners provided no feedback in this area.

People’s relatives did not provide any direct feedback in this area. They did however tell us they felt staff knew people well.

Staff felt they knew people well.

Processes were in place to assess people’s needs, choices and preferences. Some of the processes in place to assess people’s needs and risks specific to them were not robust. This increased the risk of some areas of people’s care not being individualised or appropriate.

There were processes in place such as spot checks on staff practice to ensure staff were treating people as individuals in the delivery of their care. The provider and registered manager had conducted regular monthly reviews with people using the service.

A relative told us staff supported the person’s independence and helped them do the outdoor and leisure activities they enjoyed. Records confirmed this. We found however risk assessments in respect of these activities were not robust. This meant it was difficult to tell whether the person experienced safe support when being supported with their independence, choice and control.

The registered manager said they had not identified staff lacked safety guidance on how to support people’s independence when pursuing recreational activities.

There were processes in place to enable people and their relatives to be involved in their care, such as regular monthly reviews.

The processes in place to ensure the care provided promoted people’s independence, choice and control were not always effective. For example, it was unclear what processes were undertaken to promote the choice and decision making of people who lacked the ability to communicate or make some decisions. There was a lack of effective processes in place to risk assess and support people’s ability to be independent in some areas of their care for example, mobility, nutrition, falls, recreational activities.

There was a lack of adequate risk assessment in place to mitigate risks to people’s safety when accessing outdoor or recreational activities. This meant staff lacked sufficient guidance on how to keep the person safe and prevent avoidable harm.

People’s relatives did not provide direct feedback in this area. We looked at people’s records to see if the care people experienced met their immediate needs. We found their experience was not always consistent. People’s records showed their personal care needs were responded to on each visit in accordance with their wishes and preferences.

There were gaps and inconsistences however in the care provided in other areas such as medicines, bowel management, repositioning, skin care and PEG management. This meant some people did not always experience support that met their r immediate needs were met.

The provider and registered manager did not have sufficient oversight of people’s care to ensure people’s needs were fully met.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.