ILS24Health Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found a breach of safe care and treatment in respect of person centred care. Staff lacked clear guidance on how to provide personalised support in in a range of areas, for example, mobility, falls, nutrition, skin integrity, activities.

People’s care was not monitored appropriately to ensure their individual needs were met in accordance with their care plan or guidance from other professionals. Staff were not authorised to provide basic clinical tasks tasks. In addition some staff were completing basic clinical tasks not specified in the person’s care plan such as the taking of people’s blood sugars and pressures.

People’s relative’s told us they felt able to make suggestions and raise any care concerns with staff. There were processes in place to enable people to share their views on the service such as face to face meetings and telephone calls to check people’s satisfaction with the service. The provider’s quality assurance policy made reference to an annual review of the service involving people using the service and their representatives. We did not see evidence to indicate this review took place.

It was difficult to tell if referrals to other health and social care professionals in support of people’s needs were made appropriately and equitably, as there was limited evidence of any collaboration or joined up working. The provider and registered manager had not liaised appropriately with other professionals to ensure up to date guidance was obtained and care plans updated in respect of some aspects of basic clinical care such as PEG care.

No concerns were raised by people’s relatives about the equality of their care. Everyone felt the service treated people fairly and with respect. Accurate care plans and records however were not maintained for the provider to be assured people experienced equitable care that promoted positive outcomes.

This service scored 68 (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 they were involved in discussions about people’s care along with the person themselves where possible. People’s relatives felt staff knew people well and provided support in line with their preferences.

Staff felt they provided support in accordance with the person’s wishes and preferences. Staff confirmed they provided support with some aspects of people’s basic clinical care. They told us the provider and registered manager completed spot checks on their practice.

The provider and registered manager was unable to explain why staff were providing support for basic clinical care when the service was not registered to provide this type of support. The registered manager did not demonstrate they understood their regulatory responsibilities to manage the service in accordance with their registration with CQC.

People’s relatives told us staff turned up on time and people’s visits were regular with familiar staff.

Staff and leaders provided no direct feedback in this area.

NHS and Local Authority partners were not aware that staff were undertaking aspects of clinical care for which the provider was not registered to provide. The provider had not notified or sough the approval of CQC in the provision of basic clinical care tasks to people using the service. From our discussions, the registered manager did not demonstrate they understood this was a regulatory and legal requirement.

There was a lack of clear processes in place to ensure good and effective communication with partners and other health and social care professionals.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People’s relatives told us they felt able to make suggestions and raise any care related concerns. They told us they felt involved in the person’s care and the provider was receptive and open to feedback.

One relative said, “We have a monthly meeting where we discuss any issues and what things are coming up.”

Another relative told us they were recently contacted by staff by telephone to ask if they were happy with the service provided.

Staff told us staff meetings took place to discuss the service, and the care people received.

There were some processes in place to enable people to provide feedback on their care. For example, there was a monthly care plan review process, spot checks on staff practice, and a complaints procedure.

The provider’s quality assurance policy however, made reference to an annual review of the service involving people using the service and their representatives. We did not see evidence to indicate this annual review took place.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

No concerns were raised by people’s relatives about the equality of their care. Everyone felt the service treated them fairly and with respect.

Staff had not completed training in topics important to ensuring equity in experiences and outcomes. For example, equality and diversity, person centred care and privacy and dignity. During our discussions with staff however, we did not identify any concerns in these areas.

There was an equality and diversity policy in place for both people using the service and staff.

The training programme in place did not ensure staff received regular training in key topics critical to the provision of equitable care, such as equality and diversity, person centred care, and privacy and dignity. The processes in place had not identified shortfalls in the provider’s training programme with regards to ensuring the equity in experiences and outcomes. For example, the processes in place had not identified the lack of training in key topics critical to the provision of equitable care, such as equality and diversity, person centred care, and privacy and dignity.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.